Articles | Volume 16, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023
© Author(s) 2023. 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-16-4249-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model experiment description paper
| 
27 Jul 2023
Model experiment description paper |
| 27 Jul 2023
| 27 Jul 2023
Description and evaluation of the JULES-ES set-up for ISIMIP2b
Camilla Mathison
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and
Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Eleanor Burke
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Andrew J. Hartley
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Douglas I. Kelley
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10
8BB, UK
Chantelle Burton
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Eddy Robertson
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Nicola Gedney
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Karina Williams
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Andy Wiltshire
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Richard J. Ellis
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10
8BB, UK
Alistair A. Sellar
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Chris D. Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Related authors
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth’s climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
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.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
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
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Camilla Mathison, Andrew J. Challinor, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, Sébastien Garrigues, Sophie Moulin, Karina Williams, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Matthew W. Jones, Maria L. F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Joe R. McNorton, Zhongwei Liu, Anna S. I. Bradley, Katie Blackford, Eleanor Burke, Andrew Ciavarella, Enza Di Tomaso, Jonathan Eden, Igor José M. Ferreira, Lukas Fiedler, Andrew J. Hartley, Theodore R. Keeping, Seppe Lampe, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Yuquan Qu, Patrícia S. Silva, Fiona R. Spuler, Carmen B. Steinmann, Miguel Ángel Torres-Vázquez, Renata Veiga, Dave van Wees, Jakob B. Wessel, Emily Wright, Bibiana Bilbao, Mathieu Bourbonnais, Gao Cong, Carlos M. Di Bella, Kebonye Dintwe, Victoria M. Donovan, Sarah Harris, Elena A. Kukavskaya, Brigitte N’Dri, Cristina Santín, Galia Selaya, Johan Sjöström, John Abatzoglou, Niels Andela, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Meier, Mark Parrington, Mojtaba Sadegh, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Fernando Sedano, Marco Turco, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, Liana O. Anderson, Hamish Clarke, Paulo M. Fernandes, and Crystal A. Kolden
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-483, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
The second State of Wildfires report examines extreme wildfire events from 2024 to early 2025. It analyses key regional events in Southern California, Northeast Amazonia, Pantanal-Chiquitano, and the Congo Basin, assessing their drivers, predictability, and attributing them to climate change and land use. Seasonal outlooks and decadal projections are provided. Climate change greatly increased the likelihood of these fires, and without strong mitigation, such events will become more frequent.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2691, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth’s climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Victor Brovkin, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Noel G. Brizuela, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Charles Koven, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Hongmei Li, Spencer Liddcoat, Anastasia Romanou, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, Tilo Ziehn, and Alexander J. Winkler
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3270, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3270, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Idealized experiments with Earth system models provide a basis for understanding the response of the carbon cycle to emissions. We show that most models exhibit a quasi-linear relationship between cumulative carbon uptake on land and in the ocean and hypothesize that this relationship does not depend on emission pathways. We reduce the coupled system to only one differential equation, which represents a powerful simplification of the Earth system dynamics as a function of fossil fuel emissions.
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.
Joao C. M. Teixeira, Chantelle Burton, Douglas I. Kelley, Gerd A. Folberth, Fiona M. O'Connor, Richard A. Betts, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3066, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
Burnt areas produced by wildfires around the world are decreasing, especially in tropical regions, but many climate models fail to show this trend. Our study looks at whether adding a measure of human development to a fire model could improve its representation of these processes. We found that including these factors helped the model better match observations in many regions. This shows that human activity plays a key role in shaping fire trends.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
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.
Amali A. Amali, Clemens Schwingshackl, Akihiko Ito, Alina Barbu, Christine Delire, Daniele Peano, David M. Lawrence, David Wårlind, Eddy Robertson, Edouard L. Davin, Elena Shevliakova, Ian N. Harman, Nicolas Vuichard, Paul A. Miller, Peter J. Lawrence, Tilo Ziehn, Tomohiro Hajima, Victor Brovkin, Yanwu Zhang, Vivek K. Arora, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 803–840, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study explored the impact of anthropogenic land-use change (LUC) on climate dynamics, focusing on biogeophysical (BGP) and biogeochemical (BGC) effects using data from the Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). We found that LUC-induced carbon emissions contribute to a BGC warming of 0.21 °C, with BGC effects dominating globally over BGP effects, which show regional variability. Our findings highlight discrepancies in model simulations and emphasize the need for improved representations of LUC processes.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Martin Richard Willett, Melissa Brooks, Andrew Bushell, Paul Earnshaw, Samantha Smith, Lorenzo Tomassini, Martin Best, Ian Boutle, Jennifer Brooke, John M. Edwards, Kalli Furtado, Catherine Hardacre, Andrew J. Hartley, Alan Hewitt, Ben Johnson, Adrian Lock, Andy Malcolm, Jane Mulcahy, Eike Müller, Heather Rumbold, Gabriel G. Rooney, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Annelize van Niekerk, Andy Wiltshire, and Michael Whitall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Global Atmosphere (GA) configurations of the Unified Model (UM) and Global Land (GL) configurations of JULES are developed for use in any global atmospheric modelling application. We describe a recent iteration of these configurations, GA8GL9, which includes improvements to the represenation of convection and other physical processes. GA8GL9 is used for operational weather prediction in the UK and forms the basis for the next GA and GL configuration.
Marielle Saunois, Adrien Martinez, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Zhang, Peter A. Raymond, Pierre Regnier, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Prabir K. Patra, Philippe Bousquet, Philippe Ciais, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Xin Lan, George H. Allen, David Bastviken, David J. Beerling, Dmitry A. Belikov, Donald R. Blake, Simona Castaldi, Monica Crippa, Bridget R. Deemer, Fraser Dennison, Giuseppe Etiope, Nicola Gedney, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Meredith A. Holgerson, Peter O. Hopcroft, Gustaf Hugelius, Akihiko Ito, Atul K. Jain, Rajesh Janardanan, Matthew S. Johnson, Thomas Kleinen, Paul B. Krummel, Ronny Lauerwald, Tingting Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle C. McDonald, Joe R. Melton, Jens Mühle, Jurek Müller, Fabiola Murguia-Flores, Yosuke Niwa, Sergio Noce, Shufen Pan, Robert J. Parker, Changhui Peng, Michel Ramonet, William J. Riley, Gerard Rocher-Ros, Judith A. Rosentreter, Motoki Sasakawa, Arjo Segers, Steven J. Smith, Emily H. Stanley, Joël Thanwerdas, Hanqin Tian, Aki Tsuruta, Francesco N. Tubiello, Thomas S. Weber, Guido R. van der Werf, Douglas E. J. Worthy, Yi Xi, Yukio Yoshida, Wenxin Zhang, Bo Zheng, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1873–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2). A consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists synthesise and update the budget of the sources and sinks of CH4. This edition benefits from important progress in estimating emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. For the 2010s decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated at 575 Tg CH4 yr-1, including ~65 % from anthropogenic sources.
Joseph W. Gallear, Marcelo Valadares Galdos, Marcelo Zeri, and Andrew Hartley
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1521–1541, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1521-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1521-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In Brazil, drought is of national concern and can have major consequences for agriculture. Here, we determine how to develop forecasts for drought stress on vegetation health using machine learning. Results aim to inform future developments in operational drought monitoring at the National Centre for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters (CEMADEN) in Brazil. This information is essential for disaster preparedness and planning of future actions to support areas affected by drought.
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.
Richard G. Williams, Philip Goodwin, Paulo Ceppi, Chris D. Jones, and Andrew MacDougall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How the climate system responds when carbon emissions cease is an open question: some climate models reveal a slight warming, whereas most models reveal a slight cooling. Their climate response is affected by how the planet takes up heat and radiates heat back to space, and how the land and ocean sequester carbon from the atmosphere. A framework is developed to connect the temperature response of the climate models to competing and opposing-signed thermal and carbon contributions.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Sini Talvinen, Paul Kim, Emanuele Tovazzi, Eemeli Holopainen, Roxana Cremer, Thomas Kühn, Harri Kokkola, Zak Kipling, David Neubauer, João C. Teixeira, Alistair Sellar, Duncan Watson-Parris, Yang Yang, Jialei Zhu, Srinath Krishnan, Annele Virtanen, and Daniel G. Partridge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-721, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-721, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models struggle to predict how clouds and aerosols interact, affecting Earth’s energy balance. This study compares models to observations to see how they describe effects of clouds and rain on aerosols. While both models show similar overall trends, seasonal differences emerged. These, however, align with differences in key variables participating in cloud formation. The study provides tools to improve the representation of aerosol-cloud interactions in climate models.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
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.
Marcos B. Sanches, Manoel Cardoso, Celso von Randow, Chris Jones, and Mathew Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines South America's role in the global carbon cycle using flux and stock analyses from CMIP6 Earth System Models. We discuss the continent’s relevance, model-observation agreement, and the impacts of dry and wet years on major biomes. Additionally, we assess model results indicating that parts of South America could shift from carbon sinks to emitters, significantly affecting the global carbon balance.
Beiyao Xu, Steven Dobbie, Huiyi Yang, Lianxin Yang, Yu Jiang, Andrew Challinor, Karina Williams, Yunxia Wang, and Tijian Wang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone (O3) pollution harms rice production and threatens food security. To understand these impacts, we calibrated a crop model using unique data from experiments where rice was grown in open fields under controlled O3 exposure (free air). This is the first time such data has been used to improve a model’s ability to predict how rice responds to O3 pollution. Our work provides a more accurate tool to study O3’s effects and guide strategies to protect agriculture.
Anastasios Rovithakis, Eleanor Burke, Chantelle Burton, Matthew Kasoar, Manolis G. Grillakis, Konstantinos D. Seiradakis, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-274, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-274, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
JULES-INFERNO captures observed burned area across Greece fairly well for the present-day. Drastic future changes in burnt area in Eastern continental and southern Greece, especially under severe climate change scenarios. Static vegetation leads to larger burnt area compared to dynamic vegetation due to the lower concentration of flammable needleleaf trees.
Jessica Stacey, Richard Betts, Andrew Hartley, Lina Mercado, and Nicola Gedney
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-51, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Plants typically transpire less with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, leaving more water in the ground for human use, but many future water scarcity assessments ignore this effect. We use a land surface model to examine how plant responses to carbon dioxide and climate change affect future water scarcity. Our results suggest that including these plant responses increases overall water availability for most people, highlighting the importance of their inclusion in future water scarcity studies.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Hanna Lee, Stefano Materia, Julia E. M .S. Nabel, Taejin Park, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth System Models are the principal tools for scientists to study past, present, and future climate changes. This work investigates the ability of a set of them to represent the observed changes in vegetation, which are vital to estimating the impact of future climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study highlights the main limitations in correctly representing vegetation variability. These tools still need further development to improve our understanding of future changes.
Tuula Aalto, Aki Tsuruta, Jarmo Mäkelä, Jurek Müller, Maria Tenkanen, Eleanor Burke, Sarah Chadburn, Yao Gao, Vilma Mannisenaho, Thomas Kleinen, Hanna Lee, Antti Leppänen, Tiina Markkanen, Stefano Materia, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Olli Peltola, Benjamin Poulter, Maarit Raivonen, Marielle Saunois, David Wårlind, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 22, 323–340, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Wetland methane responses to temperature and precipitation were studied in a boreal wetland-rich region in northern Europe using ecosystem models, atmospheric inversions, and upscaled flux observations. The ecosystem models differed in their responses to temperature and precipitation and in their seasonality. However, multi-model means, inversions, and upscaled fluxes had similar seasonality, and they suggested co-limitation by temperature and precipitation.
Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Joe R. Melton, William J. Riley, George H. Allen, David J. Beerling, Philippe Bousquet, Josep G. Canadell, Etienne Fluet-Chouinard, Philippe Ciais, Nicola Gedney, Peter O. Hopcroft, Akihiko Ito, Robert B. Jackson, Atul K. Jain, Katherine Jensen, Fortunat Joos, Thomas Kleinen, Sara H. Knox, Tingting Li, Xin Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle McDonald, Gavin McNicol, Paul A. Miller, Jurek Müller, Prabir K. Patra, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Zhangcai Qin, Ryan M. Riggs, Marielle Saunois, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Xiaoming Xu, Yuanzhi Yao, Yi Xi, Wenxin Zhang, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Biogeosciences, 22, 305–321, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses global methane emissions from wetlands between 2000 and 2020 using multiple models. We found that wetland emissions increased by 6–7 Tg CH4 yr-1 in the 2010s compared to the 2000s. Rising temperatures primarily drove this increase, while changes in precipitation and CO2 levels also played roles. Our findings highlight the importance of wetlands in the global methane budget and the need for continuous monitoring to understand their impact on climate change.
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
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Benjamin Mark Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew Macdougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Seferian, Lori Sentman, Isla Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman Steinert, Abigail Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated zero emissions commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Matthew W. Jones, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Maria Lucia F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Andrew J. Hartley, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Joe R. McNorton, Fiona R. Spuler, Jakob B. Wessel, John T. Abatzoglou, Liana O. Anderson, Niels Andela, Sally Archibald, Dolors Armenteras, Eleanor Burke, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Hamish Clarke, Stefan H. Doerr, Paulo M. Fernandes, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Harris, Piyush Jain, Crystal A. Kolden, Tiina Kurvits, Seppe Lampe, Sarah Meier, Stacey New, Mark Parrington, Morgane M. G. Perron, Yuquan Qu, Natasha S. Ribeiro, Bambang H. Saharjo, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jacquelyn K. Shuman, Veerachai Tanpipat, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, and Gavriil Xanthopoulos
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3601–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This inaugural State of Wildfires report catalogues extreme fires of the 2023–2024 fire season. For key events, we analyse their predictability and drivers and attribute them to climate change and land use. We provide a seasonal outlook and decadal projections. Key anomalies occurred in Canada, Greece, and western Amazonia, with other high-impact events catalogued worldwide. Climate change significantly increased the likelihood of extreme fires, and mitigation is required to lessen future risk.
Renata Moura da Veiga, Celso von Randow, Chantelle Burton, Douglas Kelley, Manoel Cardoso, and Fabiano Morelli
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2348, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2348, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We systematically reviewed 69 papers on fire emissions from the Brazilian Cerrado biome to provide insights into its placement in the atmospheric carbon budget and support future improved estimation. We find that estimating fire emissions in the Cerrado requires a comprehensive approach, combining quantitative and qualitative aspects of fire. A pathway towards this is the inclusion of fire management representation in land surface models and the integration of observational and modelling data.
Rebecca M. Varney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 21, 2759–2776, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the largest store of carbon on the land surface of Earth and is known to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Understanding this future response is vital to successfully meeting Paris Agreement targets, which rely heavily on carbon uptake by the land surface. In this study, the individual responses of soil carbon are quantified and compared amongst CMIP6 Earth system models used within the most recent IPCC report, and the role of soils in the land response is highlighted.
Katie R. Blackford, Matthew Kasoar, Chantelle Burton, Eleanor Burke, Iain Colin Prentice, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3063–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are globally important stores of carbon which are being increasingly threatened by wildfires with knock-on effects on the climate system. Here we introduce a novel peat fire parameterization in the northern high latitudes to the INFERNO global fire model. Representing peat fires increases annual burnt area across the high latitudes, alongside improvements in how we capture year-to-year variation in burning and emissions.
Douglas McNeall, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1059–1089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us understand and predict climate change and its impacts. These simulations are not perfect reproductions of the real land surface, and that can make them less effective tools. We use new statistical and computational techniques to help us understand how different our models are from the real land surface, how to make them more realistic, and how well we can simulate past and future climate.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Joao Carlos Martins Teixeira, Chantelle Burton, Douglas I. Kelly, Gerd A. Folberth, Fiona M. O'Connor, Richard A. Betts, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-136, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-136, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Representing socio-economic impacts on fires is crucial to underpin the confidence in global fire models. Introducing these into INFERNO, reduces biases and improves the modelled burnt area (BA) trends when compared to observations. Including socio-economic factors in the representation of fires in Earth System Models is important for realistically simulating BA, quantifying trends in the recent past, and for understanding the main drivers of those at regional scales.
Elizabeth Cooper, Rich Ellis, Eleanor Blyth, and Simon Dadson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1596, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1596, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We have tested a different way of simulating soil moisture and river flow. Instead of dividing the land up into over 10,000 squares to run our numerical model, we cluster the land into fewer, irregular areas with similar landscape characteristics. We show that different ways of clustering the landscape produce different patterns of soil moisture. We also show that with this method we can we match observations as well as our usual gridded approach for ten times less computational resource.
Kandice L. Harper, Céline Lamarche, Andrew Hartley, Philippe Peylin, Catherine Ottlé, Vladislav Bastrikov, Rodrigo San Martín, Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel, Grit Kirches, Martin Boettcher, Roman Shevchuk, Carsten Brockmann, and Pierre Defourny
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1465–1499, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1465-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1465-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We built a spatially explicit annual plant-functional-type (PFT) dataset for 1992–2020 exhibiting intra-class spatial variability in PFT fractional cover at 300 m. For each year, 14 maps of percentage cover are produced: bare soil, water, permanent snow/ice, built, managed grasses, natural grasses, and trees and shrubs, each split into leaf type and seasonality. Model simulations indicate significant differences in simulated carbon, water, and energy fluxes in some regions using this new set.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Thibault Hallouin, Richard J. Ellis, Douglas B. Clark, Simon J. Dadson, Andrew G. Hughes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Grenville M. S. Lister, and Jan Polcher
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9177–9196, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9177-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9177-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A new framework for modelling the water cycle in the land system has been implemented. It considers the hydrological cycle as three interconnected components, bringing flexibility in the choice of the physical processes and their spatio-temporal resolutions. It is designed to foster collaborations between land surface, hydrological, and groundwater modelling communities to develop the next-generation of land system models for integration in Earth system models.
Yao Gao, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Maarit Raivonen, Mika Aurela, Lawrence B. Flanagan, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Elyn Humphreys, Annalea Lohila, Tingting Li, Tiina Markkanen, Olli Nevalainen, Mats B. Nilsson, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Aki Tsuruta, Huiyi Yang, and Tuula Aalto
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We coupled a process-based peatland CH4 emission model HIMMELI with a state-of-art land surface model JULES. The performance of the coupled model was evaluated at six northern wetland sites. The coupled model is considered to be more appropriate in simulating wetland CH4 emission. In order to improve the simulated CH4 emission, the model requires better representation of the peat soil carbon and hydrologic processes in JULES and the methane production and transportation processes in HIMMELI.
Robert J. Parker, Chris Wilson, Edward Comyn-Platt, Garry Hayman, Toby R. Marthews, A. Anthony Bloom, Mark F. Lunt, Nicola Gedney, Simon J. Dadson, Joe McNorton, Neil Humpage, Hartmut Boesch, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Paul I. Palmer, and Dai Yamazaki
Biogeosciences, 19, 5779–5805, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5779-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wetlands are the largest natural source of methane, one of the most important climate gases. The JULES land surface model simulates these emissions. We use satellite data to evaluate how well JULES reproduces the methane seasonal cycle over different tropical wetlands. It performs well for most regions; however, it struggles for some African wetlands influenced heavily by river flooding. We explain the reasons for these deficiencies and highlight how future development will improve these areas.
Stephanie Woodward, Alistair A. Sellar, Yongming Tang, Marc Stringer, Andrew Yool, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the dust scheme in the UKESM1 Earth system model and show generally good agreement with observations. Comparing with the closely related HadGEM3-GC3.1 model, we show that dust differences are not only due to inter-model differences but also to the dust size distribution. Under climate change, HadGEM3-GC3.1 dust hardly changes, but UKESM1 dust decreases because that model includes the vegetation response which, in our models, has a bigger impact on dust than climate change itself.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 19, 4671–4704, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon store, and the response to climate change represents one of the key uncertainties in obtaining accurate global carbon budgets required to successfully militate against climate change. The ability of climate models to simulate present-day soil carbon is therefore vital. This study assesses soil carbon simulation in the latest ensemble of models which allows key areas for future model development to be identified.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Noah D. Smith, Eleanor J. Burke, Kjetil Schanke Aas, Inge H. J. Althuizen, Julia Boike, Casper Tai Christiansen, Bernd Etzelmüller, Thomas Friborg, Hanna Lee, Heather Rumbold, Rachael H. Turton, Sebastian Westermann, and Sarah E. Chadburn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3603–3639, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic has large areas of small mounds that are caused by ice lifting up the soil. Snow blown by wind gathers in hollows next to these mounds, insulating them in winter. The hollows tend to be wetter, and thus the soil absorbs more heat in summer. The warm wet soil in the hollows decomposes, releasing methane. We have made a model of this, and we have tested how it behaves and whether it looks like sites in Scandinavia and Siberia. Sometimes we get more methane than a model without mounds.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Rahayu Adzhar, Douglas I. Kelley, Ning Dong, Charles George, Mireia Torello Raventos, Elmar Veenendaal, Ted R. Feldpausch, Oliver L. Phillips, Simon L. Lewis, Bonaventure Sonké, Herman Taedoumg, Beatriz Schwantes Marimon, Tomas Domingues, Luzmila Arroyo, Gloria Djagbletey, Gustavo Saiz, and France Gerard
Biogeosciences, 19, 1377–1394, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF) product underestimates tree cover compared to field data and could be underestimating tree cover significantly across the tropics. VCF is used to represent land cover or validate model performance in many land surface and global vegetation models and to train finer-scaled Earth observation products. Because underestimation in VCF may render it unsuitable for training data and bias model predictions, it should be calibrated before use in the tropics.
Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Angela V. Gallego-Sala, Noah D. Smith, M. Syndonia Bret-Harte, Dan J. Charman, Julia Drewer, Colin W. Edgar, Eugenie S. Euskirchen, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Yao Gao, Mahdi Nakhavali, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Edward A. G. Schuur, and Sebastian Westermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1633–1657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new method to include peatlands in an Earth system model (ESM). Peatlands store huge amounts of carbon that accumulates very slowly but that can be rapidly destabilised, emitting greenhouse gases. Our model captures the dynamic nature of peat by simulating the change in surface height and physical properties of the soil as carbon is added or decomposed. Thus, we model, for the first time in an ESM, peat dynamics and its threshold behaviours that can lead to destabilisation.
Charles J. R. Williams, Alistair A. Sellar, Xin Ren, Alan M. Haywood, Peter Hopcroft, Stephen J. Hunter, William H. G. Roberts, Robin S. Smith, Emma J. Stone, Julia C. Tindall, and Daniel J. Lunt
Clim. Past, 17, 2139–2163, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-2139-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-2139-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Computer simulations of the geological past are an important tool to improve our understanding of climate change. We present results from a simulation of the mid-Pliocene (approximately 3 million years ago) using the latest version of the UK’s climate model. The simulation reproduces temperatures as expected and shows some improvement relative to previous versions of the same model. The simulation is, however, arguably too warm when compared to other models and available observations.
Robin D. Lamboll, Chris D. Jones, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Stephanie Fiedler, Bjørn H. Samset, Nathan P. Gillett, Joeri Rogelj, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3683–3695, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Lockdowns to avoid the spread of COVID-19 have created an unprecedented reduction in human emissions. We can estimate the changes in emissions at a country level, but to make predictions about how this will affect our climate, we need more precise information about where the emissions happen. Here we combine older estimates of where emissions normally occur with very recent estimates of sector activity levels to enable different groups to make simulations of the climatic effects of lockdown.
Andrew Yool, Julien Palmiéri, Colin G. Jones, Lee de Mora, Till Kuhlbrodt, Ekatarina E. Popova, A. J. George Nurser, Joel Hirschi, Adam T. Blaker, Andrew C. Coward, Edward W. Blockley, and Alistair A. Sellar
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3437–3472, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean plays a key role in modulating the Earth’s climate. Understanding this role is critical when using models to project future climate change. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate their realism against the ocean's observed state. Here we validate UKESM1, a new Earth system model, focusing on the realism of its ocean physics and circulation, as well as its biological cycles and productivity. While we identify biases, generally the model performs well over a wide range of properties.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Elizabeth Cooper, Eleanor Blyth, Hollie Cooper, Rich Ellis, Ewan Pinnington, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2445–2458, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2445-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2445-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture estimates from land surface models are important for forecasting floods, droughts, weather, and climate trends. We show that by combining model estimates of soil moisture with measurements from field-scale, ground-based sensors, we can improve the performance of the land surface model in predicting soil moisture values.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Stefano Materia, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Emilie Joetzjer, Hanna Lee, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Taejin Park, Philippe Peylin, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 2405–2428, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global climate models are the scientist’s tools used for studying past, present, and future climate conditions. This work examines the ability of a group of our tools in reproducing and capturing the right timing and length of the season when plants show their green leaves. This season, indeed, is fundamental for CO2 exchanges between land, atmosphere, and climate. This work shows that discrepancies compared to observations remain, demanding further polishing of these tools.
Ewan Pinnington, Javier Amezcua, Elizabeth Cooper, Simon Dadson, Rich Ellis, Jian Peng, Emma Robinson, Ross Morrison, Simon Osborne, and Tristan Quaife
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1617–1641, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are important tools for translating meteorological forecasts and reanalyses into real-world impacts at the Earth's surface. We show that the hydrological predictions, in particular soil moisture, of these models can be improved by combining them with satellite observations from the NASA SMAP mission to update uncertain parameters. We find a 22 % reduction in error at a network of in situ soil moisture sensors after combining model predictions with satellite observations.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Simon J. Dadson, Eleanor Blyth, Douglas Clark, Helen Davies, Richard Ellis, Huw Lewis, Toby Marthews, and Ponnambalan Rameshwaran
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-60, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-60, 2021
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Flood prediction helps national and regional planning and real-time flood response. In this study we apply and test a new way to make wide area predictions of flooding which can be combined with weather forecasting and climate models to give faster predictions of flooded areas. By simplifying the detailed floodplain topography we can keep track of the fraction of land flooded for hazard mapping purposes. When tested this approach accurately reproduces benchmark datasets for England.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Chris Huntingford, Megan A. J. Brown, Rhys Whitley, and Ning Dong
Biogeosciences, 18, 787–804, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Initial evidence suggests human ignitions or landscape changes caused most Amazon fires during August 2019. However, confirmation is needed that meteorological conditions did not have a substantial role. Assessing the influence of historical weather on burning in an uncertainty framework, we find that 2019 meteorological conditions alone should have resulted in much less fire than observed. We conclude socio-economic factors likely had a strong role in the high recorded 2019 fire activity.
Fiona M. O'Connor, N. Luke Abraham, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Paul T. Griffiths, Catherine Hardacre, Ben T. Johnson, Ron Kahana, James Keeble, Byeonghyeon Kim, Olaf Morgenstern, Jane P. Mulcahy, Mark Richardson, Eddy Robertson, Jeongbyn Seo, Sungbo Shim, João C. Teixeira, Steven T. Turnock, Jonny Williams, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Stephanie Woodward, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1211–1243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper calculates how changes in emissions and/or concentrations of different atmospheric constituents since the pre-industrial era have altered the Earth's energy budget at the present day using a metric called effective radiative forcing. The impact of land use change is also assessed. We find that individual contributions do not add linearly, and different Earth system interactions can affect the magnitude of the calculated effective radiative forcing.
Camilla Mathison, Andrew J. Challinor, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, Sébastien Garrigues, Sophie Moulin, Karina Williams, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin Johnson, Colin G. Jones, Adam C. Povey, Catherine E. Scott, Alistair Sellar, Steven T. Turnock, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Nathan Luke Abraham, Martin B. Andrews, Nicolas Bellouin, Jo Browse, Ken S. Carslaw, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Matthew Glover, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Catherine Hardacre, Richard Hill, Ben Johnson, Andy Jones, Zak Kipling, Graham Mann, James Mollard, Fiona M. O'Connor, Julien Palmiéri, Carly Reddington, Steven T. Rumbold, Mark Richardson, Nick A. J. Schutgens, Philip Stier, Marc Stringer, Yongming Tang, Jeremy Walton, Stephanie Woodward, and Andrew Yool
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6383–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are an important component of the Earth system. Here, we comprehensively document and evaluate the aerosol schemes as implemented in the physical and Earth system models, HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1. This study provides a useful characterisation of the aerosol climatology in both models, facilitating the understanding of the numerous aerosol–climate interaction studies that will be conducted for CMIP6 and beyond.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Felix Leung, Karina Williams, Stephen Sitch, Amos P. K. Tai, Andy Wiltshire, Jemma Gornall, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Timothy Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6201–6213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-level ozone (O3) is detrimental to plant productivity and crop yield. Currently, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) includes a representation of crops (JULES-crop). The parameters for O3 damage in soybean in JULES-crop were calibrated against photosynthesis measurements from the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (SoyFACE). The result shows good performance for yield, and it helps contribute to understanding of the impacts of climate and air pollution on food security.
Steven T. Turnock, Robert J. Allen, Martin Andrews, Susanne E. Bauer, Makoto Deushi, Louisa Emmons, Peter Good, Larry Horowitz, Jasmin G. John, Martine Michou, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, David Neubauer, Fiona M. O'Connor, Dirk Olivié, Naga Oshima, Michael Schulz, Alistair Sellar, Sungbo Shim, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Tongwen Wu, and Jie Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 14547–14579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14547-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14547-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A first assessment is made of the historical and future changes in air pollutants from models participating in the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Substantial benefits to future air quality can be achieved in future scenarios that implement measures to mitigate climate and involve reductions in air pollutant emissions, particularly methane. However, important differences are shown between models in the future regional projection of air pollutants under the same scenario.
Rachel L. Tunnicliffe, Anita L. Ganesan, Robert J. Parker, Hartmut Boesch, Nicola Gedney, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Zhang, Jošt V. Lavrič, David Walter, Matthew Rigby, Stephan Henne, Dickon Young, and Simon O'Doherty
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13041–13067, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13041-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13041-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study quantifies Brazil’s emissions of a potent atmospheric greenhouse gas, methane. This is in the field of atmospheric modelling and uses remotely sensed data and surface measurements of methane concentrations as well as an atmospheric transport model to interpret the data. Because of Brazil’s large emissions from wetlands, agriculture and biomass burning, these emissions affect global methane concentrations and thus are of global significance.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Eleanor J. Burke, Yu Zhang, and Gerhard Krinner
The Cryosphere, 14, 3155–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Permafrost will degrade under future climate change. This will have implications locally for the northern high-latitude regions and may well also amplify global climate change. There have been some recent improvements in the ability of earth system models to simulate the permafrost physical state, but further model developments are required. Models project the thawed volume of soil in the top 2 m of permafrost will increase by 10 %–40 % °C−1 of global mean surface air temperature increase.
Lee de Mora, Alistair A. Sellar, Andrew Yool, Julien Palmieri, Robin S. Smith, Till Kuhlbrodt, Robert J. Parker, Jeremy Walton, Jeremy C. Blackford, and Colin G. Jones
Geosci. Commun., 3, 263–278, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-263-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-263-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We use time series data from the first United Kingdom Earth System Model (UKESM1) to create six procedurally generated musical pieces for piano. Each of the six pieces help to explain either a scientific principle or a practical aspect of Earth system modelling. We describe the methods that were used to create these pieces, discuss the limitations of this pilot study and list several approaches to extend and expand upon this work.
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
James A. Franke, Christoph Müller, Joshua Elliott, Alex C. Ruane, Jonas Jägermeyr, Abigail Snyder, Marie Dury, Pete D. Falloon, Christian Folberth, Louis François, Tobias Hank, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Ingrid Jacquemin, Curtis Jones, Michelle Li, Wenfeng Liu, Stefan Olin, Meridel Phillips, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Ashwan Reddy, Karina Williams, Ziwei Wang, Florian Zabel, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3995–4018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on crop yields will be critical for global food security in the next century. The models often used to study the how climate change may impact agriculture are complex and costly to run. In this work, we describe a set of global crop model emulators (simplified models) developed under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project. Crop model emulators make agricultural simulations more accessible to policy or decision makers.
Cited articles
Adam, J. C. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Adjustment of global gridded
precipitation for systematic bias, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4257, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002499, 2003.
Adzhar, R., Kelley, D. I., Dong, N., George, C., Torello Raventos, M., Veenendaal, E., Feldpausch, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Lewis, S. L., Sonké, B., Taedoumg, H., Schwantes Marimon, B., Domingues, T., Arroyo, L., Djagbletey, G., Saiz, G., and Gerard, F.: MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields tree cover needs calibrating in tropical savannas, Biogeosciences, 19, 1377–1394, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1377-2022, 2022.
Andela, N., Morton, D. C., Giglio, L., Chen, Y., van der Werf, G. R.,
Kasibhatla, P. S., DeFries, R. S., Collatz, G. J., Hantson, S., Kloster,
S., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Lasslop, G., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Melton, J.
R., Yue C., and Randerson, J. T.: A human-driven decline in global burned
area, Science, 356, 1356–1362, 2017.
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011.
Bistinas, I., Harrison, S. P., Prentice, I. C., and Pereira, J. M. C.: Causal relationships versus emergent patterns in the global controls of fire frequency, Biogeosciences, 11, 5087–5101, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-5087-2014, 2014.
Brovkin, V., Raddatz, T., Reick, C. H., Claussen, M., and Gayler, V.: Global
biogeophysical interactions between forest and climate, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
36, L07405, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037543, 2009.
Burton, C., Betts, R., Cardoso, M., Feldpausch, T. R., Harper, A., Jones, C. D., Kelley, D. I., Robertson, E., and Wiltshire, A.: Representation of fire, land-use change and vegetation dynamics in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator vn4.9 (JULES), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 179–193, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-179-2019, 2019.
Burton, C., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Feldpausch, T. R., Cardoso, M., and
Anderson, L. O.: El Niño Driven Changes in Global Fire 2015/16, Front.
Earth Sci., 8, 199,
https://doi.org/10.3389/FEART.2020.00199, 2020.
Burton, C., Kelley, D. I., Jones, C. D., Betts, R. A., Cardoso, M., and
Anderson, L.: South American fires and their impacts on ecosystems increase
with continued emissions, Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 1, e8,
https://doi.org/10.1002/cli2.8, 2022.
Burton, C., Kelley, D. I., Burke, E., Mathison, C., Jones, C. D., Betts, R.,
Robertson, E., Teixeira, J. C. M., Cardoso, M., and Anderson, L. O.: Fire
weakens land carbon sinks before 1.5∘, in review, 2023.
Canadell, J. G., Monteiro, P. M. S., Costa, M. H., Cotrim da Cunha, L., Cox,
P. M., Eliseev, A. V., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C.,
Lohila, A., Patra, P. K., Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S.,
and Zickfeld, K.: : Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
673–816, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.007, 2021.
Cecil, D. J.: LIS/OTD 0.5 Degree High Resolution Monthly Climatology (HRMC),
NASA Global Hydrometeorology Resource Center DAAC, Huntsville, Alabama, USA [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/LIS/LIS-OTD/DATA303, 2006.
Cheng, L., Zhang, L., Wang, Y. P., Canadell, J. G., Chiew, F. H. S.,
Beringer, J., Li, L., Miralles, D. G., Piao, S., and Zhang, Y.: Recent
increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle,
Nat. Commun., 8, 110,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00114-5, 2017.
Chuvieco, E., Lizundia-Loiola, J., Pettinari, M. L., Ramo, R., Padilla, M., Tansey, K., Mouillot, F., Laurent, P., Storm, T., Heil, A., and Plummer, S.: Generation and analysis of a new global burned area product based on MODIS 250 m reflectance bands and thermal anomalies, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2015–2031, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2015-2018, 2018.
Chuvieco, E., Pettinari, M. L., Lizundia Loiola, J., Storm, T., and Padilla Parellada, M.: ESA Fire Climate Change Initiative (Fire_cci): MODIS Fire_cci Burned Area Grid product, version 5.1, Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, CEDA Archive [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/3628cb2fdba443588155e15dee8e5352, 2019.
Ciavarella, A., Cotterill, D., Stott, P., Kew, S., Philip, S., van
Oldenborgh, G. J., Skålevåg, A., Lorenz, P., Robin, Y., Otto, F.,
Hauser, M., Seneviratne, S. I., Lehner, F., and Zolina, O.: Prolonged
Siberian heat of 2020 almost impossible without human influence, Climatic
Change, 166, 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-021-03052-W,
2021.
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011, 2011.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C.
D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model
Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 10, 2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001354, 2018 (data available at: https://www.ilamb.org/datasets.html, last access: 27 June 2023).
Dai, A.: Hydroclimatic trends during 1950–2018 over global land, Clim. Dynam.,
56, 4027–4049, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-021-05684-1, 2021.
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., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, 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, 2011.
Döll, P. and Siebert, S.: Global modeling of irrigation water
requirements, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1037, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000355, 2002.
Dolman, J. A. and Gregory, D.: The Parametrization of Rainfall
Interception In GCMs, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
118, 455–467, https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.49711850504, 1992.
Falloon, P., Betts, R., Wiltshire, A., Dankers, R., Mathison, C., Mcneall,
D., Bates, P., and Trigg, M.: Validation of River Flows in HadGEM1 and
HadCM3 with the TRIP River Flow Model, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 1157–1180,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1388.1, 2011.
Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T. D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S. N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D. P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M. F., Betts, R. A., Bodirsky, B. L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C. D., Lotze, H. K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y.: Assessing the impacts of 1.5 ∘C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321–4345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017, 2017.
Gerard, F., Hooftman, D., van Langevelde, F., Veenendaal, E., White, S. M.,
and Lloyd, J.: MODIS VCF should not be used to detect discontinuities in
tree cover due to binning bias. A comment on Hanan et al. (2014) and Staver
and Hansen (2015), Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 26, 854–859,
https://doi.org/10.1111/GEB.12592, 2017.
Giglio, L., Randerson, J. T., van der Werf, G. R., Kasibhatla, P. S., Collatz, G. J., Morton, D. C., and DeFries, R. S.: Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products, Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1171-2010, 2010.
Gosling, S. N., Müller Schmied, H., Burek, P., Chang, J., Ciais, P., Döll, P., Eisner, S., Fink, G., Flörke, M., Franssen, W., Grillakis, M., Hagemann, S., Hanasaki, N., Koutroulis, A., Leng, G., Liu, X., Masaki, Y., Mathison, C., Mishra, V., Ostberg, S., Portmann, F., Qi, W., Sahu, R.-K., Satoh, Y., Schewe, J., Seneviratne, S., Shah, H. L., Stacke, T., Tao, F., Telteu, C., Thiery, W., Trautmann, T., Tsanis, I., Wanders, N., Zhai, R., Büchner, M., Schewe, J., and Zhao, F.: ISIMIP2b Simulation Data from the Global Water Sector (v1.0), ISIMIP Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.626689 (data specific for JULES-ES is described here: https://www.isimip.org/impactmodels/details/289/, last access: June 2023), 2023.
Haddeland, I., Clark, D. B., Franssen, W., Ludwig, F., Voß, F., Arnell,
N. W., Bertrand, N., Best, M., Folwell, S., Gerten, D., Gomes, S., Gosling, S. N., Hagemann, S., Hanasaki, N., Harding, R., Heinke, J., Kabat, P., Koirala, S., Oki, T., Polcher, J., Stacke, T., Viterbo, P., Weedon, G. P., and Yeh, P.:
Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first
results, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 869–884, 2011.
Hantson, S., Arneth, A., Harrison, S. P., Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Rabin, S. S., Archibald, S., Mouillot, F., Arnold, S. R., Artaxo, P., Bachelet, D., Ciais, P., Forrest, M., Friedlingstein, P., Hickler, T., Kaplan, J. O., Kloster, S., Knorr, W., Lasslop, G., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Melton, J. R., Meyn, A., Sitch, S., Spessa, A., van der Werf, G. R., Voulgarakis, A., and Yue, C.: The status and challenge of global fire modelling, Biogeosciences, 13, 3359–3375, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-3359-2016, 2016.
Hantson, S., Kelley, D. I., Arneth, A., Harrison, S. P., Archibald, S., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Hickler, T., Lasslop, G., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Melton, J. R., Nieradzik, L., Rabin, S. S., Prentice, I. C., Sheehan, T., Sitch, S., Teckentrup, L., Voulgarakis, A., and Yue, C.: Quantitative assessment of fire and vegetation properties in simulations with fire-enabled vegetation models from the Fire Model Intercomparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3299–3318, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3299-2020, 2020.
Harper, A. B., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Wiltshire, A. J., Jones, C. D., Sitch, S., Mercado, L. M., Groenendijk, M., Robertson, E., Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Atkin, O. K., Bahn, M., Cornelissen, J., Niinemets, Ü., Onipchenko, V., Peñuelas, J., Poorter, L., Reich, P. B., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., and Bodegom, P. V.: Improved representation of plant functional types and physiology in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES v4.2) using plant trait information, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2415–2440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016, 2016.
Harper, A. B., Wiltshire, A. J., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Williams, K., and Duran-Rojas, C.: Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2857–2873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, 2018.
Harper, K. L., Lamarche, C., Hartley, A., Peylin, P., Ottlé, C.,
Bastrikov, V., San Martín, R., Bohnenstengel, S. I., Kirches, G.,
Boettcher, M., Shevchuk, R., Brockmann, C., and Defourny, P.: A 29-year time
series of annual 300-metre resolution plant functional type maps for climate
models, Earth System Science Data Discussions, submitted, 2022.
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, F.: A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 219–236, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-219-2013, 2013.
Huntingford, C., Booth, B. B. B., Sitch, S., Gedney, N., Lowe, J. A., Liddicoat, S. K., Mercado, L. M., Best, M. J., Weedon, G. P., Fisher, R. A., Lomas, M. R., Good, P., Zelazowski, P., Everitt, A. C., Spessa, A. C., and Jones, C. D.: IMOGEN: an intermediate complexity model to evaluate terrestrial impacts of a changing climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 679–687, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-679-2010, 2010.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Margolis, H. A., Cescatti, A., Richardson, A. D.,
Arain, M. A., Arneth, A., Bernhofer, C., Bonal, D., Chen, J., Gianelle, D.,
Gobron, N., Kiely, G., Kutsch, W., Lasslop, G., Law, B. E., Lindroth, A.,
Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Moors, E. J., Papale, D., Sottocornola, M.,
Vaccari, F., and Williams, C.: Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of
carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance,
satellite, and meteorological observations, J. Geophys. Res., 116, G00J07,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001566, 2011.
Kelley, D. I.: Modelling Australian fire regimes, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Ryde, NSW, Australia, http://douglask3.github.io/docs/thesis.pdf (last access: 13 July 2023),
2014.
Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P., Wang, H., Simard, M., Fisher, J. B., and Willis, K. O.: A comprehensive benchmarking system for evaluating global vegetation models, Biogeosciences, 10, 3313–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3313-2013, 2013.
Kelley, D. I., Bistinas, I., Whitley, R., Burton, C., Marthews, T. R., and
Dong, N.: How contemporary bioclimatic and human controls change global fire
regimes, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 9, 690–696,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0540-7, 2019.
Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Doelman, J., and Stehfest, E.: Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene – HYDE 3.2, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 927–953, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-927-2017, 2017.
Lange, S.: Bias correction of surface downwelling longwave and shortwave radiation for the EWEMBI dataset, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 627–645, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-627-2018, 2018.
Lasslop, G., Brovkin, V., Reick, C. H., Bathiany, S., and Kloster, S.:
Multiple stable states of tree cover in a global land surface model due to a
fire-vegetation feedback, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6324–6331,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069365, 2016.
Mangeon, S., Voulgarakis, A., Gilham, R., Harper, A., Sitch, S., and Folberth, G.: INFERNO: a fire and emissions scheme for the UK Met Office's Unified Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2685–2700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2685-2016, 2016.
Mathison, C., Wiltshire, A. J., Falloon, P., and Challinor, A. J.: South Asia river-flow projections and their implications for water resources, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4783–4810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, 2015.
Ménard, C. B., Essery, R., Pomeroy, J., Marsh, P., and Clark, D. B.: A
shrub bending model to calculate the albedo of shrub-tundra, Hydrol. Process.,
28, 341–351, https://doi.org/10.1002/HYP.9582, 2014.
Mercado, L. M., Medlyn, B. E., Huntingford, C., Oliver, R. J., Clark, D. B.,
Sitch, S., Zelazowski, P., Kattge, J., Harper, A. B., and Cox, P. M.: Large
sensitivity in land carbon storage due to geographical and temporal
variation in the thermal response of photosynthetic capacity, New
Phytol., 218, 1462–1477, https://doi.org/10.1111/NPH.15100, 2018.
Miralles, D. G., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Holmes, T. R. H., and Dolman, A. J.: Magnitude and variability of land evaporation and its components at the global scale, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 967–981, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-967-2011, 2011.
Mu, Q., Zhao, M., and Running, S. W.: Improvements to a MODIS global
terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm, Remote Sens. Environ., 115,
1781–1800, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.019, 2011.
Popescu, A., Paulson, A. K., Christianson, A. C., et al.: Spreading like wildfire – The rising
threat of extraordinary landscape fires, edited by: Sullivan, A., Baker, E., and Kurvits, T., Nairobi, 1–126, 2022.
Rabin, S. S., Melton, J. R., Lasslop, G., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Hantson, S., Kaplan, J. O., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Ward, D. S., Yue, C., Arora, V. K., Hickler, T., Kloster, S., Knorr, W., Nieradzik, L., Spessa, A., Folberth, G. A., Sheehan, T., Voulgarakis, A., Kelley, D. I., Prentice, I. C., Sitch, S., Harrison, S., and Arneth, A.: The Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), phase 1: experimental and analytical protocols with detailed model descriptions, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1175–1197, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1175-2017, 2017.
Randerson, J. T., Chen, Y., Van Der Werf, G. R., Rogers, B. M., and Morton,
D. C.: Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 117, G04012, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG002128, 2012.
Reyer, C. P. O., Chang, J., Arneth, A., Chen, M., Forrest, M., François, L., Henrot, A., Hickler, T., Ito, A., Mathison, C., Nishina, K., Ostberg, S., Pan, S., Ren, W., Schaphoff, S., Seneviratne, S., Steinkamp, J., Thiery, W., Tian, H., Xu, W., Yang, J., Zhao, F., Büchner, M., and Ciais, P.: ISIMIP2b Simulation Data from the Global Biomes Sector (v2.0), ISIMIP Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.223634 (the data specific for JULES-ES is described here: https://www.isimip.org/impactmodels/details/289/, last access: June 2023), 2023.
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O'Neill, B. C.,
Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W.,
Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., Samir, K. C., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao,
S., Emmerling, J., Ebi, K., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Da
Silva, L. A., Smith, S., Stehfest, E., Bosetti, V., Eom, J., Gernaat, D.,
Masui, T., Rogelj, J., Strefler, J., Drouet, L., Krey, V., Luderer, G.,
Harmsen, M., Takahashi, K., Baumstark, L., Doelman, J. C., Kainuma, M.,
Klimont, Z., Marangoni, G., Lotze-Campen, H., Obersteiner, M., Tabeau, A.,
and Tavoni, M.: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land
use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview, Global
Environmental Change, 42, 153–168,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009, 2017.
Richey, A. S., Thomas, B. F., Lo, M. H., Reager, J. T., Famiglietti, J. S.,
Voss, K., Swenson, S., and Rodell, M.: Quantifying renewable groundwater
stress with GRACE, Water Resour. Res., 51, 5217–5238,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017349, 2015.
Robertson, E.: The Local Biophysical Response to Land-Use Change in
HadGEM2-ES, J. Climate, 32, 7611–7627, 2019.
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire,
A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de
Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson,
C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald,
A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M.,
Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B.,
Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble,
J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson,
E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G.,
and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth
System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019.
Slevin, D., Tett, S. F. B., Exbrayat, J.-F., Bloom, A. A., and Williams, M.: Global evaluation of gross primary productivity in the JULES land surface model v3.4.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2651–2670, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2651-2017, 2017.
Stackhouse Jr., P. W., Cox, S. J., Mikovitz, J. C., Zhang, T., and Gupta, S..K.: The NASA/GEWEX Surface Radiation Budget Release 4 Integrated Product: An Assessment of Improvements in Algorithms and Inputs, in: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, San Francisco, 12–16 December 2016, vol. 2016, A31F–0112, 2016.
Staver, A. C., Archibald, S., and Levin, S. A.: The global extent and
determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states, Science, 334, 230–232,
https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1210465, 2011.
Veenendaal, E. M., Torello-Raventos, M., Miranda, H. S., Sato, N. M.,
Oliveras, I., van Langevelde, F., Asner, G. P., and Lloyd, J.: On the
relationship between fire regime and vegetation structure in the tropics,
New Phytol., 218, 153–166, https://doi.org/10.1111/NPH.14940, 2018.
Warszawski, L., Friend, A., Ostberg, S., Frieler, K., Lucht, W., Schaphoff,
S., Beerling, D., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Kahana, R., Ito, A.,
Keribin, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M., Nishina, K., Pavlick, R., Rademacher,
T. T., Buechner, M., Piontek, F., Schewe, J., Serdeczny, O., and
Schellnhuber, H. J.: A multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shifts
under climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044018,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044018, 2013.
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., and
Schewe, J.: The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project
(ISI–MIP): Project framework, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 111, 3228–3232, https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1312330110, 2014.
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., Mu, M., van Marle, M. J. E., Morton, D. C., Collatz, G. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Kasibhatla, P. S.: Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 697–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017, 2017.
Williams, K. and Clark, D. B.: Disaggregation of daily data in JULES, Met Office, Exeter, 26 pp., Hadley Centre Technical Note 96, https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_8059be68-58cf-46b3-9492-1b1a0c290c0c/ (last access: 13 July 2023), 2014.
Wiltshire, A. J., Duran Rojas, M. C., Edwards, J. M., Gedney, N., Harper, A. B., Hartley, A. J., Hendry, M. A., Robertson, E., and Smout-Day, K.: JULES-GL7: the Global Land configuration of the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator version 7.0 and 7.2, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 483–505, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-483-2020, 2020.
Wiltshire, A. J., Burke, E. J., Chadburn, S. E., Jones, C. D., Cox, P. M., Davies-Barnard, T., Friedlingstein, P., Harper, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Sitch, S., and Zaehle, S.: JULES-CN: a coupled terrestrial carbon–nitrogen scheme (JULES vn5.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021.
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of...
