Articles | Volume 16, issue 16
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4715-2023
© 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-16-4715-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
23 Aug 2023
Methods for assessment of models |
| 23 Aug 2023
| 23 Aug 2023
Climate model Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread (ClimSIPS v1.0.1) for regional applications
Anna L. Merrifield
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Lukas Brunner
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Ruth Lorenz
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Vincent Humphrey
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Reto Knutti
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Related authors
Lukas Brunner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Anna L. Merrifield, Ruth Lorenz, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects of historical climate and their degree of interdependence. Our method is found to increase projection skill and to correct for structurally similar models. The weighted end-of-century mean warming (2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014) is 3.7 °C with a likely (66 %) range of 3.1 to 4.6 °C for the strong climate change scenario SSP5-8.5; this is a reduction of 0.4 °C compared with the unweighted mean.
Anna Louise Merrifield, Lukas Brunner, Ruth Lorenz, Iselin Medhaug, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 807–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Justifiable uncertainty estimates of future change in northern European winter and Mediterranean summer temperature can be obtained by weighting a multi-model ensemble comprised of projections from different climate models and multiple projections from the same climate model. Weights reduce the influence of model biases and handle dependence by identifying a projection's model of origin from historical characteristics; contributions from the same model are scaled by the number of members.
Colin Gareth Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben Booth, Peter Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene Hewitt, Hazel Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm Roberts, Benjamin 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 J. Doblas-Reyes, Markus G. Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Froelicher, Neven Fuckar, Matthew Gidden, Helge Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, Jose Manuel Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason A. Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Melia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming ~6 years (i.e. to 2030). Advances in these areas will increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, as well as deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as the 7th IPCC Assessment Report and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake under the Paris Climate Agreement.
Vincent Humphrey and Christian Frankenberg
Biogeosciences, 20, 1789–1811, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1789-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1789-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Microwave satellites can be used to monitor how vegetation biomass changes over time or how droughts affect the world's forests. However, such satellite data are still difficult to validate and interpret because of a lack of comparable field observations. Here, we present a remote sensing technique that uses the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) as a makeshift radar, making it possible to observe canopy transmissivity at any existing environmental research site in a cost-efficient way.
Tamzin E. Palmer, Carol F. McSweeney, Ben B. B. Booth, Matthew D. K. Priestley, Paolo Davini, Lukas Brunner, Leonard Borchert, and Matthew B. Menary
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We carry out an assessment of an ensemble of general climate models (CMIP6) based on the ability of the models to represent the key physical processes that are important for representing European climate. Filtering the models with the assessment leads to more models with less global warming being removed, and this shifts the lower part of the projected temperature range towards greater warming. This is in contrast to the affect of weighting the ensemble using global temperature trends.
Iris Elisabeth de Vries, Sebastian Sippel, Angeline Greene Pendergrass, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 81–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Precipitation change is an important consequence of climate change, but it is hard to detect and quantify. Our intuitive method yields robust and interpretable detection of forced precipitation change in three observational datasets for global mean and extreme precipitation, but the different observational datasets show different magnitudes of forced change. Assessment and reduction of uncertainties surrounding forced precipitation change are important for future projections and adaptation.
Ryan S. Padrón, Lukas Gudmundsson, Laibao Liu, Vincent Humphrey, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Biogeosciences, 19, 5435–5448, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5435-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5435-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The answer to how much carbon land ecosystems are projected to remove from the atmosphere until 2100 is different for each Earth system model. We find that differences across models are primarily explained by the annual land carbon sink dependence on temperature and soil moisture, followed by the dependence on CO2 air concentration, and by average climate conditions. Our insights on why each model projects a relatively high or low land carbon sink can help to reduce the underlying uncertainty.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
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.
Lukas Brunner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Anna L. Merrifield, Ruth Lorenz, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects of historical climate and their degree of interdependence. Our method is found to increase projection skill and to correct for structurally similar models. The weighted end-of-century mean warming (2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014) is 3.7 °C with a likely (66 %) range of 3.1 to 4.6 °C for the strong climate change scenario SSP5-8.5; this is a reduction of 0.4 °C compared with the unweighted mean.
Anna Louise Merrifield, Lukas Brunner, Ruth Lorenz, Iselin Medhaug, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 807–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Justifiable uncertainty estimates of future change in northern European winter and Mediterranean summer temperature can be obtained by weighting a multi-model ensemble comprised of projections from different climate models and multiple projections from the same climate model. Weights reduce the influence of model biases and handle dependence by identifying a projection's model of origin from historical characteristics; contributions from the same model are scaled by the number of members.
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Flavio Lehner, Clara Deser, Nicola Maher, Jochem Marotzke, Erich M. Fischer, Lukas Brunner, Reto Knutti, and Ed Hawkins
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 491–508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Projections of climate change are uncertain because climate models are imperfect, future greenhouse gases emissions are unknown and climate is to some extent chaotic. To partition and understand these sources of uncertainty and make the best use of climate projections, large ensembles with multiple climate models are needed. Such ensembles now exist in a public data archive. We provide several novel applications focused on global and regional temperature and precipitation projections.
Gionata Ghiggi, Vincent Humphrey, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Lukas Gudmundsson
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1655–1674, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1655-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1655-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Freshwater resources are of high societal relevance and understanding their past variability is vital to water management in the context of current and future climatic change. This study introduces GRUN: the first global gridded monthly reconstruction of runoff covering the period from 1902 to 2014. The dataset agrees on average much better with the streamflow observations than an ensemble of 13 state-of-the-art global hydrological models and will foster the understanding of freshwater dynamics.
Vincent Humphrey and Lukas Gudmundsson
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1153–1170, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1153-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1153-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Because changes in freshwater availability can impact many natural ecosystems and human activities, it is crucial to better understand long-term changes in the water cycle. This dataset is a reconstruction of past changes in land water storage over the last century, obtained by combining satellite observations with historical weather data. It can be used to investigate both regional changes in freshwater availability or drought frequency and long-term changes in the global water cycle.
Christoph Heinze, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Colin Jones, Yves Balkanski, William Collins, Thierry Fichefet, Shuang Gao, Alex Hall, Detelina Ivanova, Wolfgang Knorr, Reto Knutti, Alexander Löw, Michael Ponater, Martin G. Schultz, Michael Schulz, Pier Siebesma, Joao Teixeira, George Tselioudis, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 379–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-379-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-379-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models for producing climate projections under given forcings include additional processes and feedbacks that traditional physical climate models do not consider. We present an overview of climate feedbacks for key Earth system components and discuss the evaluation of these feedbacks. The target group for this article includes generalists with a background in natural sciences and an interest in climate change as well as experts working in interdisciplinary climate research.
Gab Abramowitz, Nadja Herger, Ethan Gutmann, Dorit Hammerling, Reto Knutti, Martin Leduc, Ruth Lorenz, Robert Pincus, and Gavin A. Schmidt
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Best estimates of future climate projections typically rely on a range of climate models from different international research institutions. However, it is unclear how independent these different estimates are, and, for example, the degree to which their agreement implies robustness. This work presents a review of the varied and disparate attempts to quantify and address model dependence within multi-model climate projection ensembles.
Nadja Herger, Gab Abramowitz, Reto Knutti, Oliver Angélil, Karsten Lehmann, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Users presented with large multi-model ensembles commonly use the equally weighted model mean as a best estimate, ignoring the issue of near replication of some climate models. We present an efficient and flexible tool that finds a subset of models with improved mean performance compared to the multi-model mean while at the same time maintaining the spread and addressing the problem of model interdependence. Out-of-sample skill and reliability are demonstrated using model-as-truth experiments.
Lukas Brunner and Andrea K. Steiner
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 4727–4745, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4727-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4727-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric blocking is a weather pattern where a stable high pressure system blocks the westerly flow at mid-latitudes. We provide, for the first time, a global perspective on blocking and related impacts, based on satellite observations from GPS radio occultation for 2006–2016. We find strong direct and remote effects on the vertical atmospheric structure revealing significant temperature and humidity anomalies up to 15 km. The observations will help for a better insight into blocking impacts.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yangyang Xu, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael Wehner, Brian O'Neill, Alexandra Jahn, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Warren G. Strand, Lei Lin, Reto Knutti, and Jean Francois Lamarque
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 827–847, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a set of climate simulations designed to simulate futures in which the Earth's temperature is stabilized at the levels referred to in the 2015 Paris Agreement. We consider the necessary future emissions reductions and the aspects of extreme weather which differ significantly between the 2 and 1.5 °C climate in the simulations.
Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Julia Fuchs, Reto Knutti, and Ulrike Lohmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9535–9546, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9535-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9535-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol-cloud interactions continue to contribute large uncertainties to our climate system understanding. In this study, we use near-global satellite and reanalysis data sets to predict marine liquid-water clouds by means of artificial neural networks. We show that on the system scale, lower-tropospheric stability and boundary layer height are the main determinants of liquid-water clouds. Aerosols show the expected impact on clouds but are less relevant than some meteorological factors.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Michael Wehner, and Reto Knutti
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
How should climate model simulations be combined to produce an overall assessment that reflects both their performance and their interdependencies? This paper presents a strategy for weighting climate model output such that models that are replicated or models that perform poorly in a chosen set of metrics are appropriately weighted. We perform sensitivity tests to show how the method results depend on variables and parameter values.
Nathan P. Gillett, Hideo Shiogama, Bernd Funke, Gabriele Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Katja Matthes, Benjamin D. Santer, Daithi Stone, and Claudia Tebaldi
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3685–3697, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3685-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3685-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Detection and attribution of climate change is the process of determining the causes of observed climate changes, which has underpinned key conclusions on the role of human influence on climate in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This paper describes a coordinated set of climate model experiments that will form part of the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project and will support improved attribution of climate change in the next IPCC report.
Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, George Hurtt, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Jason Lowe, Gerald A. Meehl, Richard Moss, Keywan Riahi, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. The design consists of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions. Climate model projections will facilitate integrated studies of climate change as well as address targeted scientific questions.
Lukas Brunner, Andrea K. Steiner, Barbara Scherllin-Pirscher, and Martin W. Jury
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4593–4604, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4593-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4593-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric blocking refers to persistent high-pressure systems which block the climatological flow at midlatitudes. We explore blocking with observations from GPS radio occultation (RO), a satellite-based remote-sensing system. Using two example cases, we find that RO data robustly capture blocking, highlighting the potential of RO observations to complement models and reanalysis as a basis for blocking research.
Andrew H. MacDougall and Reto Knutti
Biogeosciences, 13, 2123–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2123-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2123-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The soils of the permafrost region are estimated to hold 1100 to 1500 billion tonnes of carbon. As climate change progresses much of this permafrost is expected to thaw and the carbon within it decay. Here we conduct numerical experiments with a climate model to estimate with formal uncertainty bounds the release of carbon from permafrost soils. Our simulations suggest that the permafrost carbon will make a significant but not cataclysmic contribution to climate change over the next centuries.
J. Kala, M. G. De Kauwe, A. J. Pitman, R. Lorenz, B. E. Medlyn, Y.-P Wang, Y.-S Lin, and G. Abramowitz
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3877–3889, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3877-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3877-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We implement a new stomatal conductance scheme within a land surface model coupled to a global climate model. The new model differs from the default in that it allows model parameters to vary by the different plant functional types, derived from global synthesis of observations. We show that the new scheme results in improvements in the model climatology and improves existing biases in warm temperature extremes by up to 10-20% over the boreal forests during summer.
D. E. Keller, A. M. Fischer, C. Frei, M. A. Liniger, C. Appenzeller, and R. Knutti
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2163–2177, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2163-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2163-2015, 2015
R. Lorenz, A. J. Pitman, M. G. Donat, A. L. Hirsch, J. Kala, E. A. Kowalczyk, R. M. Law, and J. Srbinovsky
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 545–567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-545-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-545-2014, 2014
N. Schaller, J. Cermak, M. Wild, and R. Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 253–266, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-253-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-253-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
Multivariate adjustment of drizzle bias using machine learning in European climate projections
Development and evaluation of the interactive Model for Air Pollution and Land Ecosystems (iMAPLE) version 1.0
A perspective on the next generation of Earth system model scenarios: towards representative emission pathways (REPs)
Parallel SnowModel (v1.0): a parallel implementation of a distributed snow-evolution modeling system (SnowModel)
LB-SCAM: a learning-based method for efficient large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of the Single Column Atmosphere Model (SCAM)
Quantifying the impact of SST feedback frequency on Madden–Julian oscillation simulations
Systematic and objective evaluation of Earth system models: PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP) version 3
A revised model of global silicate weathering considering the influence of vegetation cover on erosion rate
A radiative–convective model computing precipitation with the maximum entropy production hypothesis
Leveraging regional mesh refinement to simulate future climate projections for California using the Simplified Convection-Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0
Machine learning parameterization of the multi-scale Kain–Fritsch (MSKF) convection scheme and stable simulation coupled in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model using WRF–ML v1.0
Impacts of spatial heterogeneity of anthropogenic aerosol emissions in a regionally refined global aerosol–climate model
cfr (v2024.1.26): a Python package for climate field reconstruction
NEWTS1.0: Numerical model of coastal Erosion by Waves and Transgressive Scarps
Evaluation of isoprene emissions from the coupled model SURFEX–MEGANv2.1
A comprehensive Earth system model (AWI-ESM2.1) with interactive icebergs: effects on surface and deep-ocean characteristics
The regional climate–chemistry–ecology coupling model RegCM-Chem (v4.6)–YIBs (v1.0): development and application
An overview of cloud–radiation denial experiments for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1
The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6
Subgrid-scale variability of cloud ice in the ICON-AES 1.3.00
INFERNO-peat v1.0.0: a representation of northern high-latitude peat fires in the JULES-INFERNO global fire model
The 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled land data assimilation system for E3SM version 2
Continental-scale bias-corrected climate and hydrological projections for Australia
G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies
Modeling the effects of tropospheric ozone on the growth and yield of global staple crops with DSSAT v4.8.0
A one-dimensional urban flow model with an eddy-diffusivity mass-flux (EDMF) scheme and refined turbulent transport (MLUCM v3.0)
DCMIP2016: the tropical cyclone test case
Interactions between atmospheric composition and climate change – progress in understanding and future opportunities from AerChemMIP, PDRMIP, and RFMIP
CD-type discretization for sea ice dynamics in FESOM version 2
Dynamic MJO forecasts using an ensemble subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast system of IAP-CAS model
CSDMS Data Components: data–model integration tools for Earth surface processes modeling
A generic algorithm to automatically classify urban fabric according to the local climate zone system: implementation in GeoClimate 0.0.1 and application to French cities
Modelling water isotopologues (1H2H16O, 1H217O) in the coupled numerical climate model iLOVECLIM (version 1.1.5)
Localized injections of interactive volcanic aerosols and their climate impacts in a simple general circulation model
Accurate assessment of land–atmosphere coupling in climate models requires high-frequency data output
Towards variance-conserving reconstructions of climate indices with Gaussian process regression in an embedding space
A diatom extension to the cGEnIE Earth system model – EcoGEnIE 1.1
Carbon isotopes in the marine biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3
Flux coupling approach on an exchange grid for the IOW Earth System Model (version 1.04.00) of the Baltic Sea region
Using EUREC4A/ATOMIC field campaign data to improve trade wind regimes in the Community Atmosphere Model
New model ensemble reveals how forcing uncertainty and model structure alter climate simulated across CMIP generations of the Community Earth System Model
Quantifying wildfire drivers and predictability in boreal peatlands using a two-step error-correcting machine learning framework in TeFire v1.0
Benchmarking GOCART-2G in the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS)
Energy-conserving physics for nonhydrostatic dynamics in mass coordinate models
Evaluation and optimisation of the soil carbon turnover routine in the MONICA model (version 3.3.1)
Assessing the sensitivity of aerosol mass budget and effective radiative forcing to horizontal grid spacing in E3SMv1 using a regional refinement approach
Towards the definition of a solar forcing dataset for CMIP7
ibicus: a new open-source Python package and comprehensive interface for statistical bias adjustment and evaluation in climate modelling (v1.0.1)
Disentangling the hydrological and hydraulic controls on streamflow variability in Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) V2 – a case study in the Pantanal region
Constraining the carbon cycle in JULES-ES-1.0
Georgia Lazoglou, Theo Economou, Christina Anagnostopoulou, George Zittis, Anna Tzyrkalli, Pantelis Georgiades, and Jos Lelieveld
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4689–4703, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study focuses on the important issue of the drizzle bias effect in regional climate models, described by an over-prediction of the number of rainy days while underestimating associated precipitation amounts. For this purpose, two distinct methodologies are applied and rigorously evaluated. These results are encouraging for using the multivariate machine learning method random forest to increase the accuracy of climate models concerning the projection of the number of wet days.
Xu Yue, Hao Zhou, Chenguang Tian, Yimian Ma, Yihan Hu, Cheng Gong, Hui Zheng, and Hong Liao
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4621–4642, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4621-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4621-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We develop the interactive Model for Air Pollution and Land Ecosystems (iMAPLE). The model considers the full coupling between carbon and water cycles, dynamic fire emissions, wetland methane emissions, biogenic volatile organic compound emissions, and trait-based ozone vegetation damage. Evaluations show that iMAPLE is a useful tool for the study of the interactions among climate, chemistry, and ecosystems.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Ross Mower, Ethan D. Gutmann, Glen E. Liston, Jessica Lundquist, and Soren Rasmussen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4135–4154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Higher-resolution model simulations are better at capturing winter snowpack changes across space and time. However, increasing resolution also increases the computational requirements. This work provides an overview of changes made to a distributed snow-evolution modeling system (SnowModel) to allow it to leverage high-performance computing resources. Continental simulations that were previously estimated to take 120 d can now be performed in 5 h.
Jiaxu Guo, Juepeng Zheng, Yidan Xu, Haohuan Fu, Wei Xue, Lanning Wang, Lin Gan, Ping Gao, Wubing Wan, Xianwei Wu, Zhitao Zhang, Liang Hu, Gaochao Xu, and Xilong Che
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3975–3992, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3975-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3975-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To enhance the efficiency of experiments using SCAM, we train a learning-based surrogate model to facilitate large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of combinations of multiple parameters. Employing a hybrid method, we investigate the joint sensitivity of multi-parameter combinations across typical cases, identifying the most sensitive three-parameter combination out of 11. Subsequently, we conduct a tuning process aimed at reducing output errors in these cases.
Yung-Yao Lan, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, and Wan-Ling Tseng
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3897–3918, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3897-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3897-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses the CAM5–SIT coupled model to investigate the effects of SST feedback frequency on the MJO simulations with intervals at 30 min, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 d. The simulations become increasingly unrealistic as the frequency of the SST feedback decreases. Our results suggest that more spontaneous air--sea interaction (e.g., ocean response within 3 d in this study) with high vertical resolution in the ocean model is key to the realistic simulation of the MJO.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
Haoyue Zuo, Yonggang Liu, Gaojun Li, Zhifang Xu, Liang Zhao, Zhengtang Guo, and Yongyun Hu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3949–3974, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3949-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3949-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Compared to the silicate weathering fluxes measured at large river basins, the current models tend to systematically overestimate the fluxes over the tropical region, which leads to an overestimation of the global total weathering flux. The most possible cause of such bias is found to be the overestimation of tropical surface erosion, which indicates that the tropical vegetation likely slows down physical erosion significantly. We propose a way of taking this effect into account in models.
Quentin Pikeroen, Didier Paillard, and Karine Watrin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3801–3814, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3801-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3801-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
All accurate climate models use equations with poorly defined parameters, where knobs for the parameters are turned to fit the observations. This process is called tuning. In this article, we use another paradigm. We use a thermodynamic hypothesis, the maximum entropy production, to compute temperatures, energy fluxes, and precipitation, where tuning is impossible. For now, the 1D vertical model is used for a tropical atmosphere. The correct order of magnitude of precipitation is computed.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Qi Tang, Philip Cameron-smith, and Chengzhu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3687–3731, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a regionally refined climate model that allows resolved convection and performed a 20-year projection to the end of the century. The model has a resolution of 3.25 km in California, which allows us to predict climate with unprecedented accuracy, and a resolution of 100 km for the rest of the globe to achieve efficient, self-consistent simulations. The model produces superior results in reproducing climate patterns over California that typical modern climate models cannot resolve.
Xiaohui Zhong, Xing Yu, and Hao Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3667–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3667-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3667-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In order to forecast localized warm-sector rainfall in the south China region, numerical weather prediction models are being run with finer grid spacing. The conventional convection parameterization (CP) performs poorly in the gray zone, necessitating the development of a scale-aware scheme. We propose a machine learning (ML) model to replace the scale-aware CP scheme. Evaluation against the original CP scheme has shown that the ML-based CP scheme can provide accurate and reliable predictions.
Taufiq Hassan, Kai Zhang, Jianfeng Li, Balwinder Singh, Shixuan Zhang, Hailong Wang, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3507–3532, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic aerosol emissions are an essential part of global aerosol models. Significant errors can exist from the loss of emission heterogeneity. We introduced an emission treatment that significantly improved aerosol emission heterogeneity in high-resolution model simulations, with improvements in simulated aerosol surface concentrations. The emission treatment will provide a more accurate representation of aerosol emissions and their effects on climate.
Feng Zhu, Julien Emile-Geay, Gregory J. Hakim, Dominique Guillot, Deborah Khider, Robert Tardif, and Walter A. Perkins
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3409–3431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate field reconstruction encompasses methods that estimate the evolution of climate in space and time based on natural archives. It is useful to investigate climate variations and validate climate models, but its implementation and use can be difficult for non-experts. This paper introduces a user-friendly Python package called cfr to make these methods more accessible, thanks to the computational and visualization tools that facilitate efficient and reproducible research on past climates.
Rose V. Palermo, J. Taylor Perron, Jason M. Soderblom, Samuel P. D. Birch, Alexander G. Hayes, and Andrew D. Ashton
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3433–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Models of rocky coastal erosion help us understand the controls on coastal morphology and evolution. In this paper, we present a simplified model of coastline erosion driven by either uniform erosion where coastline erosion is constant or wave-driven erosion where coastline erosion is a function of the wave power. This model can be used to evaluate how coastline changes reflect climate, sea-level history, material properties, and the relative influence of different erosional processes.
Safae Oumami, Joaquim Arteta, Vincent Guidard, Pierre Tulet, and Paul David Hamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3385–3408, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we coupled the SURFEX and MEGAN models. The aim of this coupling is to improve the estimation of biogenic fluxes by using the SURFEX canopy environment model. The coupled model results were validated and several sensitivity tests were performed. The coupled-model total annual isoprene flux is 442 Tg; this value is within the range of other isoprene estimates reported. The ultimate aim of this coupling is to predict the impact of climate change on biogenic emissions.
Lars Ackermann, Thomas Rackow, Kai Himstedt, Paul Gierz, Gregor Knorr, and Gerrit Lohmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3279–3301, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present long-term simulations with interactive icebergs in the Southern Ocean. By melting, icebergs reduce the temperature and salinity of the surrounding ocean. In our simulations, we find that this cooling effect of iceberg melting is not limited to the surface ocean but also reaches the deep ocean and propagates northward into all ocean basins. Additionally, the formation of deep-water masses in the Southern Ocean is enhanced.
Nanhong Xie, Tijian Wang, Xiaodong Xie, Xu Yue, Filippo Giorgi, Qian Zhang, Danyang Ma, Rong Song, Beiyao Xu, Shu Li, Bingliang Zhuang, Mengmeng Li, Min Xie, Natalya Andreeva Kilifarska, Georgi Gadzhev, and Reneta Dimitrova
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3259–3277, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For the first time, we coupled a regional climate chemistry model, RegCM-Chem, with a dynamic vegetation model, YIBs, to create a regional climate–chemistry–ecology model, RegCM-Chem–YIBs. We applied it to simulate climatic, chemical, and ecological parameters in East Asia and fully validated it on a variety of observational data. Results show that RegCM-Chem–YIBs model is a valuable tool for studying the terrestrial carbon cycle, atmospheric chemistry, and climate change on a regional scale.
Bryce E. Harrop, Jian Lu, L. Ruby Leung, William K. M. Lau, Kyu-Myong Kim, Brian Medeiros, Brian J. Soden, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Bosong Zhang, and Balwinder Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3111–3135, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seven new experimental setups designed to interfere with cloud radiative heating have been added to the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM). These experiments include both those that test the mean impact of cloud radiative heating and those examining its covariance with circulations. This paper documents the code changes and steps needed to run these experiments. Results corroborate prior findings for how cloud radiative heating impacts circulations and rainfall patterns.
Mario C. Acosta, Sergi Palomas, Stella V. Paronuzzi Ticco, Gladys Utrera, Joachim Biercamp, Pierre-Antoine Bretonniere, Reinhard Budich, Miguel Castrillo, Arnaud Caubel, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Italo Epicoco, Uwe Fladrich, Sylvie Joussaume, Alok Kumar Gupta, Bryan Lawrence, Philippe Le Sager, Grenville Lister, Marie-Pierre Moine, Jean-Christophe Rioual, Sophie Valcke, Niki Zadeh, and Venkatramani Balaji
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3081–3098, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a collection of performance metrics gathered during the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), a worldwide initiative to study climate change. We analyse the metrics that resulted from collaboration efforts among many partners and models and describe our findings to demonstrate the utility of our study for the scientific community. The research contributes to understanding climate modelling performance on the current high-performance computing (HPC) architectures.
Sabine Doktorowski, Jan Kretzschmar, Johannes Quaas, Marc Salzmann, and Odran Sourdeval
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3099–3110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Especially over the midlatitudes, precipitation is mainly formed via the ice phase. In this study we focus on the initial snow formation process in the ICON-AES, the aggregation process. We use a stochastical approach for the aggregation parameterization and investigate the influence in the ICON-AES. Therefore, a distribution function of cloud ice is created, which is evaluated with satellite data. The new approach leads to cloud ice loss and an improvement in the process rate bias.
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.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, Bin Wang, Kai Zhang, Samson M. Hagos, and Shixuan Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3025–3040, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions have profound socio-economic impacts. This study introduces a new weakly coupled land data assimilation (WCLDA) system for a coupled climate model. We demonstrate improved simulation of soil moisture and temperature in many global regions and throughout the soil layers. Furthermore, significant improvements are also found in reproducing the time evolution of the 2012 US Midwest drought. The WCLDA system provides the groundwork for future predictability studies.
Justin Peter, Elisabeth Vogel, Wendy Sharples, Ulrike Bende-Michl, Louise Wilson, Pandora Hope, Andrew Dowdy, Greg Kociuba, Sri Srikanthan, Vi Co Duong, Jake Roussis, Vjekoslav Matic, Zaved Khan, Alison Oke, Margot Turner, Stuart Baron-Hay, Fiona Johnson, Raj Mehrotra, Ashish Sharma, Marcus Thatcher, Ali Azarvinand, Steven Thomas, Ghyslaine Boschat, Chantal Donnelly, and Robert Argent
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2755–2781, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2755-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2755-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We detail the production of datasets and communication to end users of high-resolution projections of rainfall, runoff, and soil moisture for the entire Australian continent. This is important as previous projections for Australia were for small regions and used differing techniques for their projections, making comparisons difficult across Australia's varied climate zones. The data will be beneficial for research purposes and to aid adaptation to climate change.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Jose Rafael Guarin, Jonas Jägermeyr, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Fabio A. A. Oliveira, Senthold Asseng, Kenneth Boote, Joshua Elliott, Lisa Emberson, Ian Foster, Gerrit Hoogenboom, David Kelly, Alex C. Ruane, and Katrina Sharps
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2547–2567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2547-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2547-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The effects of ozone (O3) stress on crop photosynthesis and leaf senescence were added to maize, rice, soybean, and wheat crop models. The modified models reproduced growth and yields under different O3 levels measured in field experiments and reported in the literature. The combined interactions between O3 and additional stresses were reproduced with the new models. These updated crop models can be used to simulate impacts of O3 stress under future climate change and air pollution scenarios.
Jiachen Lu, Negin Nazarian, Melissa Anne Hart, E. Scott Krayenhoff, and Alberto Martilli
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2525–2545, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2525-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2525-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study enhances urban canopy models by refining key assumptions. Simulations for various urban scenarios indicate discrepancies in turbulent transport efficiency for flow properties. We propose two modifications that involve characterizing diffusion coefficients for momentum and turbulent kinetic energy separately and introducing a physics-based
mass-fluxterm. These adjustments enhance the model's performance, offering more reliable temperature and surface flux estimates.
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate simulation of tropical cyclones (TCs) is essential to understanding their behavior in a changing climate. One way this is accomplished is through model intercomparison projects, where results from multiple climate models are analyzed to provide benchmark solutions for the wider climate modeling community. This study describes and analyzes the previously developed TC test case for nine climate models in an intercomparison project, providing solutions that aid in model development.
Stephanie Fiedler, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Christopher J. Smith, Paul Griffiths, Ryan J. Kramer, Toshihiko Takemura, Robert J. Allen, Ulas Im, Matthew Kasoar, Angshuman Modak, Steven Turnock, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M. Westervelt, Laura J. Wilcox, Alcide Zhao, William J. Collins, Michael Schulz, Gunnar Myhre, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2387–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate scientists want to better understand modern climate change. Thus, climate model experiments are performed and compared. The results of climate model experiments differ, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This article gives insights into the challenges and outlines opportunities for further improving the understanding of climate change. It is based on views of a group of experts in atmospheric composition–climate interactions.
Sergey Danilov, Carolin Mehlmann, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Qiang Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2287–2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice models are a necessary component of climate models. At very high resolution they are capable of simulating linear kinematic features, such as leads, which are important for better prediction of heat exchanges between the ocean and atmosphere. Two new discretizations are described which improve the sea ice component of the Finite volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM version 2) by allowing simulations of finer scales.
Yangke Liu, Qing Bao, Bian He, Xiaofei Wu, Jing Yang, Yimin Liu, Guoxiong Wu, Tao Zhu, Siyuan Zhou, Yao Tang, Ankang Qu, Yalan Fan, Anling Liu, Dandan Chen, Zhaoming Luo, Xing Hu, and Tongwen Wu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This article gives an overview introduction of the IAP-CAS S2S (sub-seasonal to seasonal) ensemble forecasting system and MJO forecast evaluation of the system. Compared to other S2S models, the IAP-CAS model has its advantages but also exhibits some biases, including underdispersive ensemble, overestimated amplitude and faster propagation speed when forecasting MJO. We also provide the explanation towards these biases and prospects for further improvement of this system in the future.
Tian Gan, Gregory E. Tucker, Eric W. H. Hutton, Mark D. Piper, Irina Overeem, Albert J. Kettner, Benjamin Campforts, Julia M. Moriarty, Brianna Undzis, Ethan Pierce, and Lynn McCready
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2165–2185, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2165-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2165-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents the design, implementation, and application of the CSDMS Data Components. The case studies demonstrate that the Data Components provide a consistent way to access heterogeneous datasets from multiple sources, and to seamlessly integrate them with various models for Earth surface process modeling. The Data Components support the creation of open data–model integration workflows to improve the research transparency and reproducibility.
Jérémy Bernard, Erwan Bocher, Matthieu Gousseff, François Leconte, and Elisabeth Le Saux Wiederhold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2077–2116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2077-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2077-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Geographical features may have a considerable effect on local climate. The local climate zone (LCZ) system proposed by Stewart and Oke (2012) is seen as a standard approach for classifying any zone according to a set of geographic indicators. While many methods already exist to map the LCZ, only a few tools are openly and freely available. We present the algorithm implemented in GeoClimate software to identify the LCZ of any place in the world using OpenStreetMap data.
Thomas Extier, Thibaut Caley, and Didier M. Roche
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2117–2139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2117-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2117-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stable water isotopes are used to infer changes in the hydrological cycle for different time periods in climatic archive and climate models. We present the implementation of the δ2H and δ17O water isotopes in the coupled climate model iLOVECLIM and calculate the d- and 17O-excess. Results of a simulation under preindustrial conditions show that the model correctly reproduces the water isotope distribution in the atmosphere and ocean in comparison to data and other global circulation models.
Joseph P. Hollowed, Christiane Jablonowski, Hunter Y. Brown, Benjamin R. Hillman, Diana L. Bull, and Joseph L. Hart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-335, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-335, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Large volcanic eruptions deposit material into the upper-atmosphere, which is capable of altering temperature and wind patterns of the Earth's atmosphere for years following. This research describes a new method of simulating these effects in an idealized, efficient atmospheric model. A volcanic eruption of sulfur dioxide is described with a simplified set of physical rules, which eventually cools the planetary surface. This model has been designed as a testbed for climate attribution studies.
Kirsten L. Findell, Zun Yin, Eunkyo Seo, Paul A. Dirmeyer, Nathan P. Arnold, Nathaniel Chaney, Megan D. Fowler, Meng Huang, David M. Lawrence, Po-Lun Ma, and Joseph A. Santanello Jr.
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1869–1883, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1869-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1869-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We outline a request for sub-daily data to accurately capture the process-level connections between land states, surface fluxes, and the boundary layer response. This high-frequency model output will allow for more direct comparison with observational field campaigns on process-relevant timescales, enable demonstration of inter-model spread in land–atmosphere coupling processes, and aid in targeted identification of sources of deficiencies and opportunities for improvement of the models.
Marlene Klockmann, Udo von Toussaint, and Eduardo Zorita
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1765–1787, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1765-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1765-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Reconstructions of climate variability before the observational period rely on climate proxies and sophisticated statistical models to link the proxy information and climate variability. Existing models tend to underestimate the true magnitude of variability, especially if the proxies contain non-climatic noise. We present and test a promising new framework for climate-index reconstructions, based on Gaussian processes, which reconstructs robust variability estimates from noisy and sparse data.
Aaron A. Naidoo-Bagwell, Fanny M. Monteiro, Katharine R. Hendry, Scott Burgan, Jamie D. Wilson, Ben A. Ward, Andy Ridgwell, and Daniel J. Conley
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1729–1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1729-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1729-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
As an extension to the EcoGEnIE 1.0 Earth system model that features a diverse plankton community, EcoGEnIE 1.1 includes siliceous plankton diatoms and also considers their impact on biogeochemical cycles. With updates to existing nutrient cycles and the introduction of the silicon cycle, we see improved model performance relative to observational data. Through a more functionally diverse plankton community, the new model enables more comprehensive future study of ocean ecology.
Martin Butzin, Ying Ye, Christoph Völker, Özgür Gürses, Judith Hauck, and Peter Köhler
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1709–1727, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1709-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1709-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper we describe the implementation of the carbon isotopes 13C and 14C into the marine biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3 and present results of long-term test simulations. Our model results are largely consistent with marine carbon isotope reconstructions for the pre-anthropogenic period, but also exhibit some discrepancies.
Sven Karsten, Hagen Radtke, Matthias Gröger, Ha T. M. Ho-Hagemann, Hossein Mashayekh, Thomas Neumann, and H. E. Markus Meier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1689–1708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the development of a regional Earth System Model for the Baltic Sea region. In contrast to conventional coupling approaches, the presented model includes a flux calculator operating on a common exchange grid. This approach automatically ensures a locally consistent treatment of fluxes and simplifies the exchange of model components. The presented model can be used for various scientific questions, such as studies of natural variability and ocean–atmosphere interactions.
Skyler Graap and Colin M. Zarzycki
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1627–1650, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1627-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1627-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A key target for improving climate models is how low, bright clouds are predicted over tropical oceans, since they have important consequences for the Earth's energy budget. A climate model has been updated to improve the physical realism of the treatment of how momentum is moved up and down in the atmosphere. By comparing this updated model to real-world observations from balloon launches, it can be shown to more accurately depict atmospheric structure in trade-wind areas close to the Equator.
Marika M. Holland, Cecile Hannay, John Fasullo, Alexandra Jahn, Jennifer E. Kay, Michael Mills, Isla R. Simpson, William Wieder, Peter Lawrence, Erik Kluzek, and David Bailey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1585–1602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate evolves in response to changing forcings, as prescribed in simulations. Models and forcings are updated over time to reflect new understanding. This makes it difficult to attribute simulation differences to either model or forcing changes. Here we present new simulations which enable the separation of model structure and forcing influence between two widely used simulation sets. Results indicate a strong influence of aerosol emission uncertainty on historical climate.
Rongyun Tang, Mingzhou Jin, Jiafu Mao, Daniel M. Ricciuto, Anping Chen, and Yulong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1525–1542, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1525-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1525-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon-rich boreal peatlands are at risk of burning. The reproducibility and predictability of rare peatland fire events are investigated by constructing a two-step error-correcting machine learning framework to tackle such complex systems. Fire occurrence and impacts are highly predictable with our approach. Factor-controlling simulations revealed that temperature, moisture, and freeze–thaw cycles control boreal peatland fires, indicating thermal impacts on causing peat fires.
Allison B. Collow, Peter R. Colarco, Arlindo M. da Silva, Virginie Buchard, Huisheng Bian, Mian Chin, Sampa Das, Ravi Govindaraju, Dongchul Kim, and Valentina Aquila
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1443–1468, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1443-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1443-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The GOCART aerosol module within the Goddard Earth Observing System recently underwent a major refactoring and update to the representation of physical processes. Code changes that were included in GOCART Second Generation (GOCART-2G) are documented, and we establish a benchmark simulation that is to be used for future development of the system. The 4-year benchmark simulation was evaluated using in situ and spaceborne measurements to develop a baseline and prioritize future development.
Oksana Guba, Mark A. Taylor, Peter A. Bosler, Christopher Eldred, and Peter H. Lauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1429–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We want to reduce errors in the moist energy budget in numerical atmospheric models. We study a few common assumptions and mechanisms that are used for the moist physics. Some mechanisms are more consistent with the underlying equations. Separately, we study how assumptions about models' thermodynamics affect the modeled energy of precipitation. We also explain how to conserve energy in the moist physics for nonhydrostatic models.
Konstantin Aiteew, Jarno Rouhiainen, Claas Nendel, and René Dechow
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1349–1385, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1349-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1349-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated the biogeochemical model MONICA and its performance in simulating soil organic carbon changes. MONICA can reproduce plant growth, carbon and nitrogen dynamics, soil water and temperature. The model results were compared with five established carbon turnover models. With the exception of certain sites, adequate reproduction of soil organic carbon stock change rates was achieved. The MONICA model was capable of performing similar to or even better than the other models.
Jianfeng Li, Kai Zhang, Taufiq Hassan, Shixuan Zhang, Po-Lun Ma, Balwinder Singh, Qiyang Yan, and Huilin Huang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1327–1347, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1327-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1327-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
By comparing E3SM simulations with and without regional refinement, we find that model horizontal grid spacing considerably affects the simulated aerosol mass budget, aerosol–cloud interactions, and the effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols. The study identifies the critical physical processes strongly influenced by model resolution. It also highlights the benefit of applying regional refinement in future modeling studies at higher or even convection-permitting resolutions.
Bernd Funke, Thierry Dudok de Wit, Ilaria Ermolli, Margit Haberreiter, Doug Kinnison, Daniel Marsh, Hilde Nesse, Annika Seppälä, Miriam Sinnhuber, and Ilya Usoskin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1217–1227, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1217-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1217-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We outline a road map for the preparation of a solar forcing dataset for the upcoming Phase 7 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7), considering the latest scientific advances made in the reconstruction of solar forcing and in the understanding of climate response while also addressing the issues that were raised during CMIP6.
Fiona Raphaela Spuler, Jakob Benjamin Wessel, Edward Comyn-Platt, James Varndell, and Chiara Cagnazzo
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1249–1269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1249-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1249-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Before using climate models to study the impacts of climate change, bias adjustment is commonly applied to the models to ensure that they correspond with observations at a local scale. However, this can introduce undesirable distortions into the climate model. In this paper, we present an open-source python package called ibicus to enable the comparison and detailed evaluation of bias adjustment methods, facilitating their transparent and rigorous application.
Donghui Xu, Gautam Bisht, Zeli Tan, Chang Liao, Tian Zhou, Hong-Yi Li, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1197–1215, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1197-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1197-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We aim to disentangle the hydrological and hydraulic controls on streamflow variability in a fully coupled earth system model. We found that calibrating only one process (i.e., traditional calibration procedure) will result in unrealistic parameter values and poor performance of the water cycle, while the simulated streamflow is improved. To address this issue, we further proposed a two-step calibration procedure to reconcile the impacts from hydrological and hydraulic processes on streamflow.
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.
Cited articles
Abramowitz, G., Herger, N., Gutmann, E., Hammerling, D., Knutti, R., Leduc, M., Lorenz, R., Pincus, R., and Schmidt, G. A.: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d, e
Annan, J. D. and Hargreaves, J. C.: On the meaning of independence in climate science, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 211–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-211-2017, 2017. a, b
Ashfaq, M., Rastogi, D., Abid, M. A., and Kao, S.-C.: Evaluation of CMIP6 GCMs
over the CONUS for downscaling studies, Earth and Space Science Open Archive,
p. 28, https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10510589.1, 2022. a, b
Athanasiadis, P. J., Ogawa, F., Omrani, N.-E., Keenlyside, N., Schiemann, R.,
Baker, A. J., Vidale, P. L., Bellucci, A., Ruggieri, P., Haarsma, R.,
Roberts, M., Roberts, C., Novak, L., and Gualdi, S.: Mitigating climate
biases in the mid-latitude North Atlantic by increasing model resolution: SST
gradients and their relation to blocking and the jet, J. Climate, 35, 6985–7006, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0515.1, 2022. a
Bi, D., Dix, M., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Uotila, P., Hirst,
Kowalczyk, E., Golebiewski, Sullivan, A., Yan, Y., Hannah, Franklin, C., Sun,
Z., Vohralik, Watterson, Fiedler, R., Collier, M., and Puri, K.: The ACCESS
coupled model: Description, control climate and evaluation,
Aust. Meteorol. Ocean., 63, 41–64,
https://doi.org/10.22499/2.6301.004, 2012. a
Bishop, C. and Abramowitz, G.: Climate model dependence and the replicate Earth
paradigm, Clim. Dynam., 41, 885–900, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1610-y, 2013. a, b, c, d
Bloomfield, H. C., Shaffrey, L. C., Hodges, K. I., and Vidale, P. L.: A
critical assessment of the long-term changes in the wintertime surface Arctic
Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere storminess in the ERA20C reanalysis,
Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 094004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad5c5,
2018. a
Borchert, L. F., Pohlmann, H., Baehr, J., Neddermann, N.-C., Suarez-Gutierrez,
L., and Müller, W. A.: Decadal Predictions of the Probability of Occurrence
for Warm Summer Temperature Extremes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46,
14042–14051, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085385, 2019. a
Borg, I. and Groenen, P.: Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and
Applications (Springer Series in Statistics),
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2711-1, 2005. a
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y.,
Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P.,
Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A.,
Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., de Lavergne, C., Denvil, S., Deshayes,
J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J.-L., Dupont, E., Éthé,
C., Fairhead, L., Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols, M.-A., Gardoll, S.,
Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guenet, B., Guez, Lionel, E.,
Guilyardi, E., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A.,
Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Krinner, G., Lebas, N., Levavasseur,
G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton, T., Luyssaert, S., Madec, G.,
Madeleine, J.-B., Maignan, F., Marchand, M., Marti, O., Mellul, L.,
Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé, C., Peylin, P., Planton,
Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset, C., Sepulchre, P., Sima, A.,
Swingedouw, D., Thiéblemont, R., Traore, A. K., Vancoppenolle, M., Vial,
J., Vialard, J., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and Evaluation of
the IPSL-CM6A-LR Climate Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020. a
Boé, J.: Interdependency in Multimodel Climate Projections: Component
Replication and Result Similarity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45,
2771–2779, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076829, 2018. a
Brands, S.: A circulation-based performance atlas of the CMIP5 and 6 models for regional climate studies in the Northern Hemisphere mid-to-high latitudes, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1375–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1375-2022, 2022a. a
Brands, S., Tatebe, H., Danek, C., Fernández, J., Swart, N. C., Volodin, E.,
Kim, Y., Collier, M., Bi, D., and Tongwen, W.:
SwenBrands/gcm-metadata-for-cmip: First standalone version of GCM metadata
archive “get_historical_metadata.py”, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7715384, 2023. a, b, c
Brunner, L. and Sippel, S.: Identifying climate models based on their daily output using machine learning, Environ. Data Sci., 2, E22, https://doi.org/10.1017/eds.2023.23, 2023. a, b
Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Zumwald, M., and Knutti, R.: Quantifying uncertainty
in European climate projections using combined performance-independence
weighting, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 124010,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab492f, 2019. a
Brunner, L., Hauser, M., Lorenz, R., and Beyerle, U.: The ETH Zurich CMIP6
next generation archive: technical documentation, p. 10,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3734128, 2020a. a
Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D. J., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R. E., Goody,
R. M., Leith, C. E., Stommel, H. M., and Wunsch, C. I.: Carbon dioxide and
climate: A scientific assessment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D. C., https://doi.org/10.17226/12181, 1979. a
Cheruy, F., Dufresne, J. L., Hourdin, F., and Ducharne, A.: Role of clouds and
land-atmosphere coupling in midlatitude continental summer warm biases and
climate change amplification in CMIP5 simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 6493–6500, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061145, 2014. a
Christensen, O. and Kjellström, E.: Partitioning uncertainty components of
mean climate and climate change in a large ensemble of European regional
climate model projections, Clim. Dynam., 54, 4293–4308,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05229-y, 2020. a
CORDEX, S. A. T.: CORDEX Coordinated Output for Regional Evaluations (CORE): A
simulation framework in support of IPCC AR6, wCRP Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment,
https://cordex.org/experiment-guidelines/cordex-core/cordex-core-simulation-framework/
(last access: 1 May
2022), 2018. a
Cornes, R. C., van der Schrier, G., van den Besselaar, E. J. M., and Jones,
P. D.: An Ensemble Version of the E-OBS Temperature and Precipitation Data
Sets, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 9391–9409,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028200, 2018. a
Dalelane, C., Früh, B., Steger, C., and Walter, A.: A Pragmatic Approach to
Build a Reduced Regional Climate Projection Ensemble for Germany Using the
EURO-CORDEX 8.5 Ensemble, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 57,
477 – 491, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0141.1, 2018. a, b
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier,
A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A.,
Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M.,
Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R.,
Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van
Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer,
C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E.,
Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch,
P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2),
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a
Davy, R. and Outten, S.: The Arctic Surface Climate in CMIP6: Status and
Developments since CMIP5, J.puzti Climate, 33, 8047–8068,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0990.1, 2020. a
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H.: Uncertainty in climate
change projections: the role of internal variability, Climm Dynam., 38,
527–546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x, 2012. a
Deser, C., Lehner, F., Rodgers, K. B., Ault, T., Delworth, T. L., DiNezio,
P. N., Fiore, A., Frankignoul, C., Fyfe, J. C., Horton, D. E., Kay, J. E.,
Knutti, R., Lovenduski, N. S., Marotzke, J., McKinnon, K. A., Minobe, S.,
Randerson, J., Screen, J. A., Simpson, I. R., and Ting, M.: Insights from
Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects,
Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 277–286, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0731-2, 2020. a
Di Virgilio, G., Ji, F., Tam, E., Nishant, N., Evans, J. P., Thomas, C., Riley,
M. L., Beyer, K., Grose, M. R., Narsey, S., and Delage, F.: Selecting CMIP6
GCMs for CORDEX Dynamical Downscaling: Model Performance, Independence, and
Climate Change Signals, Earth's Future, 10, e2021EF002625,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002625, 2022. a, b, c
Dorrington, J., Strommen, K., and Fabiano, F.: How well does CMIP6 capture the
dynamics of Euro-Atlantic weather regimes, and why,
Weather and Climate
Dynamics Discussions, 2021, 1–41, 2021. a
Döscher, R., Acosta, M., Alessandri, A., Anthoni, P., Arsouze, T., Bergman, T., Bernardello, R., Boussetta, S., Caron, L.-P., Carver, G., Castrillo, M., Catalano, F., Cvijanovic, I., Davini, P., Dekker, E., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Docquier, D., Echevarria, P., Fladrich, U., Fuentes-Franco, R., Gröger, M., v. Hardenberg, J., Hieronymus, J., Karami, M. P., Keskinen, J.-P., Koenigk, T., Makkonen, R., Massonnet, F., Ménégoz, M., Miller, P. A., Moreno-Chamarro, E., Nieradzik, L., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., O'Donnell, D., Ollinaho, P., van den Oord, G., Ortega, P., Prims, O. T., Ramos, A., Reerink, T., Rousset, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Schmith, T., Schrödner, R., Serva, F., Sicardi, V., Sloth Madsen, M., Smith, B., Tian, T., Tourigny, E., Uotila, P., Vancoppenolle, M., Wang, S., Wårlind, D., Willén, U., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yepes-Arbós, X., and Zhang, Q.: The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022. a, b
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Adcroft, A. J., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W.,
Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K. A., Harrison, M. J.,
Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Phillipps, P. J., Sentman,
L. T., Samuels, B. L., Spelman, M. J., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., and
Zadeh, N.: GFDL's ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models.
Part I: Physical Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics, J. Climate, 25, 6646–6665, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00560.1, 2012. a
Evans, J. P., Ji, F., Abramowitz, G., and Ekström, M.: Optimally choosing
small ensemble members to produce robust climate simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044050, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044050, 2013. a, b, c
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b, c
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M.,
Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019. a
Fischer, E. M., Seneviratne, S. I., Lüthi, D., and Schär, C.:
Contribution of land-atmosphere coupling to recent European summer heat
waves, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L06707, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL029068, 2007. a
Flynn, C. M. and Mauritsen, T.: On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 7829–7842, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7829-2020, 2020. a
Giorgetta, M. A., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C. H., Legutke, S., Bader, J.,
Böttinger, M., Brovkin, V., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fieg, K., Glushak, K.,
Gayler, V., Haak, H., Hollweg, H.-D., Ilyina, T., Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L.,
Matei, D., Mauritsen, T., Mikolajewicz, U., Mueller, W., Notz, D., Pithan,
F., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Redler, R., Roeckner, E., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R.,
Segschneider, J., Six, K. D., Stockhause, M., Timmreck, C., Wegner, J.,
Widmann, H., Wieners, K.-H., Claussen, M., Marotzke, J., and Stevens, B.:
Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for
the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 572–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20038, 2013. a
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A.,
Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., and Williams, K. D.: A new method
for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004. a, b, c
Gründemann, G., van de Giesen, N., Brunner, L., and van der Ent, R.: Rarest
rainfall events will see the greatest relative increase in magnitude under
future climate change, Commun. Earth Environ., 3, 235,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00558-8, 2022. a
Harper, M., Weinstein, B., Woodcock, T. G., and Simon, C.: python-ternary:
Ternary Plots in Python, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.594435, 2015. a
Harvey, B. J., Cook, P., Shaffrey, L. C., and Schiemann, R.: The Response of
the Northern Hemisphere Storm Tracks and Jet Streams to Climate Change in the
CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 Climate Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032701, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032701, 2020. a
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., Pitman, A., and Phipps, S. J.: On the generation
of climate model ensembles, Clim. Dynam., 43, 2297–2308,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2054-3, 2014. a
Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018. a, b, c
Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J., Balaji, V., Duan, Q.,
Folini, D., Ji, D., Klocke, D., Qian, Y., Rauser, F., Rio, C., Tomassini, L.,
Watanabe, M., and Williamson, D.: The Art and Science of Climate Model
Tuning, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 589–602,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1, 2017. a, b
Huang, B., Thorne, P. W., Banzon, V. F., Boyer, T., Chepurin, G., Lawrimore,
J. H., Menne, M. J., Smith, T. M., Vose, R. S., and Zhang, H.-M.: Extended
Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades,
Validations, and Intercomparisons, J. Climate, 30, 8179–8205,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1, 2017. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021. a
Iturbide, M., Gutiérrez, J. M., Alves, L. M., Bedia, J., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cimadevilla, E., Cofiño, A. S., Di Luca, A., Faria, S. H., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Hauser, M., Herrera, S., Hennessy, K., Hewitt, H. T., Jones, R. G., Krakovska, S., Manzanas, R., Martínez-Castro, D., Narisma, G. T., Nurhati, I. S., Pinto, I., Seneviratne, S. I., van den Hurk, B., and Vera, C. S.: An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: definition and aggregated datasets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2959–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2959-2020, 2020. a
Jones, P. D. and Harpham, C.: Estimation of the absolute surface air
temperature of the Earth, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
3213–3217, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50359, 2013. a
Katsavounidis, I., Jay Kuo, C.-C., and Zhang, Z.: A new initialization
technique for generalized Lloyd iteration, IEEE Signal Proc. Let., 1,
144–146, https://doi.org/10.1109/97.329844, 1994. a, b
Kay, J. E., Hillman, B. R., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Medeiros, B., Pincus, R.,
Gettelman, A., Eaton, B., Boyle, J., Marchand, R., and Ackerman, T. P.:
Exposing Global Cloud Biases in the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) Using
Satellite Observations and Their Corresponding Instrument Simulators, J. Climate, 25, 5190–5207, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00469.1, 2012. a
Keeley, S. P. E., Sutton, R. T., and Shaffrey, L. C.: The impact of North
Atlantic sea surface temperature errors on the simulation of North Atlantic
European region climate, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 138, 1774–1783, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1912, 2012. a
Kiesel, J., Stanzel, P., Kling, H., Fohrer, N., Jähnig, S. C., and
Pechlivanidis, I.: Streamflow-based evaluation of climate model sub-selection
methods, Clim. Change, 163, 1267–1285, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02854-8,
2020. a
Knutti, R.: The end of model democracy?, Clim. Change, 102, 395–404,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2, 2010. a
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., and Meehl, G.: Challenges in
combining projections from multiple climate models, J. Climate, 23,
2739–2758, 2010. a
Knutti, R., Masson, D., and Gettelman, A.: Climate model genealogy: Generation
CMIP5 and how we got there, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1194–1199,
https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50256, 2013. a, b
Knutti, R., Sedláček, J., Sanderson, B. M., Lorenz, R., Fischer,
E. M., and Eyring, V.: A climate model projection weighting scheme
accounting for performance and interdependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
1909–1918, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072012, 2017. a, b, c, d
Leduc, M., Laprise, R., de Elía, R., and Šeparović, L.: Is Institutional
Democracy a Good Proxy for Model Independence?, J. Climate, 29, 8301–8316, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0761.1, 2016. a
Lee, W.-L., Wang, Y.-C., Shiu, C.-J., Tsai, I., Tu, C.-Y., Lan, Y.-Y., Chen, J.-P., Pan, H.-L., and Hsu, H.-H.: Taiwan Earth System Model Version 1: description and evaluation of mean state, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3887–3904, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3887-2020, 2020. a
Lipat, B. R., Tselioudis, G., Grise, K. M., and Polvani, L. M.: CMIP5 models'
shortwave cloud radiative response and climate sensitivity linked to the
climatological Hadley cell extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
5739–5748, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073151, 2017. a
Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G.,
Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth’s
Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF)
Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate, 31, 895–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1, 2018. a
Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G., Kato, S., Rutan, D. A., Su, W., Wang, H., Doelling,
D. R., Smith, W. L., and Gettelman, A.: Toward a Consistent Definition
between Satellite and Model Clear-Sky Radiative Fluxes, J. Climate,
33, 61–75, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0381.1, 2020. a
Lorenz, R., Herger, N., Sedláček, J., Eyring, V., Fischer, E. M., and
Knutti, R.: Prospects and Caveats of Weighting Climate Models for Summer
Maximum Temperature Projections Over North America, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 123, 4509–4526, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027992, 2018. a
Lutz, A., ter Maat, H., Biemans, H., Shresth, A., Wester, P., and Immerzeel,
W.: Selecting representative climate models for climate change impact
studies: an advanced envelope based selection approach, Int. J. Climatol., 36,
3988–4005, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4608, 2016. a, b
Maher, N., Milinski, S., and Ludwig, R.: Large ensemble climate model simulations: introduction, overview, and future prospects for utilising multiple types of large ensemble, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 401–418, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-401-2021, 2021a. a
Maher, N., Power, S., and Marotzke, J.: More accurate quantification of
model-to-model agreement in externally forced climatic responses over the
coming century, Nat. Commun., 12, 788, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20635-w,
2021b. a
Masson, D. and Knutti, R.: Climate model genealogy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L08703, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864, 2011. a, b
Mauritsen, T., Stevens, B., Roeckner, E., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Giorgetta, M.,
Haak, H., Jungclaus, J., Klocke, D.and Matei, D., Mikolajewicz, U., Notz, D.,
Pincus, R., Schmidt, H., and Tomassini, L.: Tuning the climate of a global
model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 4, M00A01, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012MS000154, 2012. a, b
McSweeney, C. F. and Jones, R. G.: How representative is the spread of climate
projections from the 5 CMIP5 GCMs used in ISI-MIP?, Climate Services, 1,
24–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2016.02.001, 2016. a, b
McSweeney, C. F., Jones, R. G., Lee, R. W., and Rowell, D. P.: Selecting CMIP5
GCMs for downscaling over multiple regions, Clim. Dynam., 44, 3237–3260,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2418-8, 2015. a
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.:
Intercomparison makes for a better climate model, Eos, Transactions American
Geophysical Union, 78, 445–451, https://doi.org/10.1029/97EO00276, 1997. a
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Curt Covey, M. L., and Stouffer, R. J.: The Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 81, 313–318, 2000. a
Mendlik, T. and Gobiet, A.: Selecting climate simulations for impact studies
based on multivariate patterns of climate change, Clim. Change, 135,
381–393, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1582-0, 2016. a
Merrifield, A. L.: CMIP_subselection: Scripts to accompany Climate model
Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread, Zenodo [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7492727, 2022. a
Merrifield, A. L.: Predictor files for ClimSIPS: Climate model Selection by
Independence, Performance, and Spread, ETH Research Collection [data set],
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000599312, 2023. a
Merrifield, A. L. and Könz, M. S.: ClimSIPS: Climate model Selection by
Independence, Performance, and Spread, Zenodo [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8165835, 2023. a, b
Mignot, J. and Bony, S.: Presentation and analysis of the IPSL and CNRM climate
models used in CMIP5, Clim. Dynam., 40, 2089, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1720-1,
2013. a
Moreno-Chamarro, E., Caron, L.-P., Ortega, P., Tomas, S. L., and Roberts,
M. J.: Can we trust CMIP5/6 future projections of European winter
precipitation?, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 054063,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf28a, 2021. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Palmer, T. E., McSweeney, C. F., Booth, B. B. B., Priestley, M. D. K., Davini, P., Brunner, L., Borchert, L., and Menary, M. B.: Performance-based sub-selection of CMIP6 models for impact assessments in Europe, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023. a, b, c
Parker, W. S.: When Climate Models Agree: The Significance of Robust Model
Predictions, Philos. Sci., 78, 579–600, https://doi.org/10.1086/661566, 2011. a
Parker, W. S.: Ensemble modeling, uncertainty and robust predictions, WIREs
Clim Change, 4, 213–223, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.220, 2013. a, b
Pirtle, Z., Meyer, R., and Hamilton, A.: What does it mean when climate models
agree? A case for assessing independence among general circulation models,
Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 351–361,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.004, 2010. a
Qian, B., Jing, Q., Cannon, A. J., Smith, W., Grant, B., Semenov, M. A., Xu,
Y.-P., and Ma, D.: Effectiveness of using representative subsets of global
climate models in future crop yield projections, Sci. Rep., 11, 20565,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99378-7, 2021. a, b, c
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020. a
Rohde, R., Muller, R., Jacobsen, R., Perlmutter, S., Rosenfeld, A., Wurtele, J., Curry, J., Wickham, C., and Mosher, S.:
Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview,
1, 1000103, https://doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000103, 2013. a
Ruane, A. and McDermid, S.: Selection of a representative subset of global
climate models that captures the profile of regional changes for integrated
climate impacts assessment, Earth Perspectives, 4, 28,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40322-017-0036-4, 2017. a, b, c
Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M., and Knutti, R.: Skill and independence weighting for multi-model assessments, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017. a
Sanderson, B. M., Pendergrass, A. G., Koven, C. D., Brient, F., Booth, B. B. B., Fisher, R. A., and Knutti, R.: The potential for structural errors in emergent constraints, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021. a
Schmidt, G.: Absolute temperatures and relative anomalies,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/absolute-temperatures-and-relative-anomalies/#ITEM-17690-0 (last access: 5 April 2022),
2014. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020. a
Semenov, M. and Stratonovich, P.: Adapting wheat ideotypes for climate change:
accounting for uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections, Clim. Res., 65,
123–139, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01297, 2015. a
Seneviratne, S. I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C. M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y., Marengo, J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C., and Zhang, X.: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment, in: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M., A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 109–230, https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-6nbt-s431, 2012. a
Simpson, I., Yeager, S., McKinnon, K., and C., D.: Decadal predictability of
late winter precipitation in western Europe through an ocean-jet stream
connection, Nat. Geosci., 12, 613–619, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0391-x,
2019. a
Simpson, I. R., Bacmeister, J., Neale, R. B., Hannay, C., Gettelman, A.,
Garcia, R. R., Lauritzen, P. H., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M. J., Medeiros, B.,
and Richter, J. H.: An Evaluation of the Large-Scale Atmospheric Circulation
and Its Variability in CESM2 and Other CMIP Models, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032835, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032835,
2020. a
Simpson, I. R., McKinnon, K. A., Davenport, F. V., Tingley, M., Lehner, F.,
Fahad, A. A., and Chen, D.: Emergent Constraints on the Large-Scale
Atmospheric Circulation and Regional Hydroclimate: Do They Still Work in
CMIP6 and How Much Can They Actually Constrain the Future?, J.
Climate, 34, 6355–6377, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0055.1, 2021. a
Sippel, S., Zscheischler, J., Mahecha, M. D., Orth, R., Reichstein, M., Vogel, M., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Refining multi-model projections of temperature extremes by evaluation against land–atmosphere coupling diagnostics, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 387–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-387-2017, 2017. a
Sliggers, J. and Kakebeeke, W.: Clearing the air; 25 Years of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, ECE/EB.AIR/84, United Nations, New York and Geneva,
2004. a
Smith, C., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Armour, K., Collins, W., Forster, P.,
Meinshausen, M., Palmer, M. D., and Watanabe, M.: The Earth’s Energy
Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity Supplementary Material,
chap. 7, 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., https://ipcc.ch/static/ar6/wg1 (last access: 28 September 2022), 2021. a
Sperna Weiland, F. C., Visser, R. D., Greve, P., Bisselink, B., Brunner, L.,
and Weerts, A. H.: Estimating Regionalized Hydrological Impacts of Climate
Change Over Europe by Performance-Based Weighting of CORDEX Projections,
Frontiers in Water, 3, 713537, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.713537, 2021. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the
experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012. a, b, c
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J.,
Lehner, F., and Knutti, R.: Past warming trend constrains future warming in
CMIP6 models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz9549, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549,
2020. a
Tselioudis, G., Lipat, B. R., Konsta, D., Grise, K. M., and Polvani, L. M.:
Midlatitude cloud shifts, their primary link to the Hadley cell, and their
diverse radiative effects, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 4594–4601,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068242, 2016. a
Ukkola, A. M., Pitman, A. J., Donat, M. G., De Kauwe, M. G., and Angélil, O.:
Evaluating the Contribution of Land-Atmosphere Coupling to Heat Extremes in
CMIP5 Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 9003–9012,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079102, 2018. a
Weigel, A., Knutti, R., Liniger, M., and Appenzeller, C.: Risks of Model
Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections, J. Climate, 23,
4175–4191, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3594.1, 2010.
a
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M.,
Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of Higher Climate
Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020.
a, b
Zheng, W., Yu, Y.-Q., Luan, Y., Zhao, S., He, B., Dong, L., Song, M., Lin, P.,
and Liu, H.: CAS-FGOALS Datasets for the Two Interglacial Epochs of the
Holocene and the Last Interglacial in PMIP4, Adv. Atmos.
Sci., 37, 1034–1044, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-9290-8, 2020. a
Short summary
Using all Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models is unfeasible for many applications. We provide a subselection protocol that balances user needs for model independence, performance, and spread capturing CMIP’s projection uncertainty simultaneously. We show how sets of three to five models selected for European applications map to user priorities. An audit of model independence and its influence on equilibrium climate sensitivity uncertainty in CMIP is also presented.
Using all Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models is unfeasible for many...
