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
Peter Pfleiderer, Anna Merrifield, István Dunkl, Homer Durand, Enora Cariou, Julien Cattiaux, and Sebastian Sippel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
Due to changes in atmospheric circulation some regions are warming quicker than others. Statistical methods are used to estimate how much of the local summer temperature trends are due to circulation changes. We evaluate these methods by comparing their estimates to special simulations representing only temperature changes related to circulation changes. By applying the methods to observations of 1979–2023 we find that half of the warming over parts of Europe is related to circulation changes.
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.
Peter Pfleiderer, Anna Merrifield, István Dunkl, Homer Durand, Enora Cariou, Julien Cattiaux, and Sebastian Sippel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
Due to changes in atmospheric circulation some regions are warming quicker than others. Statistical methods are used to estimate how much of the local summer temperature trends are due to circulation changes. We evaluate these methods by comparing their estimates to special simulations representing only temperature changes related to circulation changes. By applying the methods to observations of 1979–2023 we find that half of the warming over parts of Europe is related to circulation changes.
Sean P. Burns, Vincent Humphrey, Ethan D. Gutmann, Mark S. Raleigh, David R. Bowling, and Peter D. Blanken
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We compared two techniques that are affected by the amount of liquid water in a forest canopy. One technique relies on remote sensing (a pair of GPS systems) and the other uses tree motion generated by the wind. Though completely different, these two techniques show strikingly similar changes when rain falls on an evergreen forest. We combine these measurements with eddy-covariance fluxes of water vapor to provide some insight into the evaporation of canopy-intercepted precipitation.
Luna Bloin-Wibe, Robin Noyelle, Vincent Humphrey, Urs Beyerle, Reto Knutti, and Erich Fischer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-525, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-525, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Weather extremes have become more frequent due to climate change. It is therefore crucial to understand them, but since they are rarer than average weather, they are challenging to study. Ensemble Boosting (EB) is a tool that generates extreme climate model events efficiently, but without directly estimating their probability. Here, we present a method to recover these probabilities for a global climate model. EB can thus now be used to find extremes with meaningful statistical information.
Hans Segura, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Philipp Weiss, Sebastian K. Müller, Thomas Rackow, Junhong Lee, Edgar Dolores-Tesillos, Imme Benedict, Matthias Aengenheyster, Razvan Aguridan, Gabriele Arduini, Alexander J. Baker, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Eulàlia Baulenas, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Nils Brüggemann, Lukas Brunner, Suvarchal K. Cheedela, Sushant Das, Jasper Denissen, Ian Dragaud, Piotr Dziekan, Madeleine Ekblom, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Richard Forbes, Claudia Frauen, Lilli Freischem, Diego García-Maroto, Philipp Geier, Paul Gierz, Álvaro González-Cervera, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Ioan Hadade, Kerstin Haslehner, Shabeh ul Hasson, Jan Hegewald, Lukas Kluft, Aleksei Koldunov, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Shunya Koseki, Sergey Kosukhin, Josh Kousal, Peter Kuma, Arjun U. Kumar, Rumeng Li, Nicolas Maury, Maximilian Meindl, Sebastian Milinski, Kristian Mogensen, Bimochan Niraula, Jakub Nowak, Divya Sri Praturi, Ulrike Proske, Dian Putrasahan, René Redler, David Santuy, Domokos Sármány, Reiner Schnur, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Dorian Spät, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Adrian Tompkins, Alejandro Uribe, Mirco Valentini, Menno Veerman, Aiko Voigt, Sarah Warnau, Fabian Wachsmann, Marta Wacławczyk, Nils Wedi, Karl-Hermann Wieners, Jonathan Wille, Marius Winkler, Yuting Wu, Florian Ziemen, Janos Zimmermann, Frida A.-M. Bender, Dragana Bojovic, Sandrine Bony, Simona Bordoni, Patrice Brehmer, Marcus Dengler, Emanuel Dutra, Saliou Faye, Erich Fischer, Chiel van Heerwaarden, Cathy Hohenegger, Heikki Järvinen, Markus Jochum, Thomas Jung, Johann H. Jungclaus, Noel S. Keenlyside, Daniel Klocke, Heike Konow, Martina Klose, Szymon Malinowski, Olivia Martius, Thorsten Mauritsen, Juan Pedro Mellado, Theresa Mieslinger, Elsa Mohino, Hanna Pawłowska, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Abdoulaye Sarré, Pajam Sobhani, Philip Stier, Lauri Tuppi, Pier Luigi Vidale, Irina Sandu, and Bjorn Stevens
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The nextGEMS project developed two Earth system models that resolve processes of the order of 10 km, giving more fidelity to the representation of local phenomena, globally. In its fourth cycle, nextGEMS performed simulations with coupled ocean, land, and atmosphere over the 2020–2049 period under the SSP3-7.0 scenario. Here, we provide an overview of nextGEMS, insights into the model development, and the realism of multi-decadal, kilometer-scale simulations.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone, and greenhouse gases alone, among others, are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies, and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Nicola Maher, Adam S. Phillips, Clara Deser, Robert C. Jnglin Wills, Flavio Lehner, John Fasullo, Julie M. Caron, Lukas Brunner, and Urs Beyerle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new multi-model large ensemble archive (MMLEAv2) and introduce the newly updated Climate Variability Diagnostics Package version 6 (CVDPv6), which is designed specifically for use with large ensembles. For highly variable quantities, we demonstrate that a model might evaluate poorly or favourably compared to the single realisation of the world that the observations represent, highlighting the need for large ensembles for model evaluation.
Viet Dung Nguyen, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Katrin Nissen, Lukas Brunner, and Bruno Merz
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 10, 195–216, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel stochastic weather generator conditioned on circulation patterns and regional temperature, accounting for dynamic and thermodynamic atmospheric changes. We extensively evaluate the model for the central European region. It statistically downscales precipitation for future periods, generating long, spatially and temporally consistent series. Results suggest an increase in extreme precipitation over the region, offering key benefits for hydrological impact studies.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
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
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
NMH-CS 3.0: a C# programming language and Windows-system-based ecohydrological model derived from Noah-MP
A method for quantifying uncertainty in spatially interpolated meteorological data with application to daily maximum air temperature
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
PaleoSTeHM v1.0: a modern, scalable spatiotemporal hierarchical modeling framework for paleo-environmental data
The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP)
ZEMBA v1.0: an energy and moisture balance climate model to investigate Quaternary climate
Development and evaluation of a new 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled ocean data assimilation system in E3SMv2
TemDeep: a self-supervised framework for temporal downscaling of atmospheric fields at arbitrary time resolutions
The ensemble consistency test: from CESM to MPAS and beyond
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
A Fortran–Python interface for integrating machine learning parameterization into earth system models
ROCKE-3D 2.0: An updated general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
WRF-ELM v1.0: a regional climate model to study land–atmosphere interactions over heterogeneous land use regions
Modeling commercial-scale CO2 storage in the gas hydrate stability zone with PFLOTRAN v6.0
DiuSST: a conceptual model of diurnal warm layers for idealized atmospheric simulations with interactive sea surface temperature
High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) towards CMIP7
T&C-CROP: representing mechanistic crop growth with a terrestrial biosphere model (T&C, v1.5) – model formulation and validation
An updated non-intrusive, multi-scale, and flexible coupling interface in WRF 4.6.0
Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK 0.14.0.11): a Python library for research and teaching
CropSuite v1.0 – a comprehensive open-source crop suitability model considering climate variability for climate impact assessment
ICON ComIn – the ICON Community Interface (ComIn version 0.1.0, with ICON version 2024.01-01)
Using feature importance as an exploratory data analysis tool on Earth system models
A new metrics framework for quantifying and intercomparing atmospheric rivers in observations, reanalyses, and climate models
The real challenges for climate and weather modelling on its way to sustained exascale performance: a case study using ICON (v2.6.6)
COSP-RTTOV-1.0: Flexible radiation diagnostics to enable new science applications in model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design
Impact of spatial resolution on CMIP6-driven Mediterranean climate simulations: a focus on precipitation distribution over Italy
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v2.0) contribution to CMIP7
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
GOSI9: UK Global Ocean and Sea Ice configurations
Decomposition of skill scores for conditional verification: impact of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phases on the predictability of decadal temperature forecasts
Virtual Integration of Satellite and In-situ Observation Networks (VISION) v1.0: In-Situ Observations Simulator (ISO_simulator)
Climate model downscaling in central Asia: a dynamical and a neural network approach
Advanced climate model evaluation with ESMValTool v2.11.0 using parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing
Multi-year simulations at kilometre scale with the Integrated Forecasting System coupled to FESOM2.5 and NEMOv3.4
Features of mid- and high-latitude low-level clouds and their relation to strong aerosol effects in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 (E3SMv2)
Subsurface hydrological controls on the short-term effects of hurricanes on nitrate–nitrogen runoff loading: a case study of Hurricane Ida using the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (v2.1)
The Development and Application of an Arctic Sea Ice Emulator v.1
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As fire seasons in Brazil become increasingly severe, confidently understanding the factors driving fires is more critical than ever. To address this challenge, we developed FLAME (Fire Landscape Analysis using Maximum Entropy), a new model designed to predict fires and to analyse the spatial influence of both environmental and human factors while accounting for uncertainties. By adapting the model to different regions, we can enhance fire management strategies, making FLAME a powerful tool for protecting landscapes in Brazil and beyond.
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present SURFER v3.0, a simple climate model designed to estimate the impact of CO2 and CH4 emissions on global temperatures, sea levels, and ocean pH. We added new carbon cycle processes and calibrated the model to observations and results from more complex models, enabling use over timescales ranging from decades to millions of years. SURFER v3.0 is fast, transparent, and easy to use, making it an ideal tool for policy assessments and suitable for educational purposes.
Yong-He Liu and Zong-Liang Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3157–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
NMH-CS 3.0 is a C#-based ecohydrological model reconstructed from the WRF-Hydro/Noah-MP model by translating the Fortran code of WRF-Hydro 3.0 and integrating a parallel river routing module. It enables efficient execution on multi-core personal computers. Simulations in the Yellow River basin demonstrate its consistency with WRF-Hydro outputs, providing a reliable alternative to the original Noah-MP model.
Conor T. Doherty, Weile Wang, Hirofumi Hashimoto, and Ian G. Brosnan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3003–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present, analyze, and validate a methodology for quantifying uncertainty in gridded meteorological data products produced by spatial interpolation. In a validation case study using daily maximum near-surface air temperature (Tmax), the method works well and produces predictive distributions with closely matching theoretical versus actual coverage levels. Application of the method reveals that the magnitude of uncertainty in interpolated Tmax varies significantly in both space and time.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Yucheng Lin, Robert E. Kopp, Alexander Reedy, Matteo Turilli, Shantenu Jha, and Erica L. Ashe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2609–2637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
PaleoSTeHM v1.0 is a state-of-the-art framework designed to reconstruct past environmental conditions using geological data. Built on modern machine learning techniques, it efficiently handles the sparse and noisy nature of paleo-records, allowing scientists to make accurate and scalable inferences about past environmental change. By using flexible statistical models, PaleoSTeHM separates different sources of uncertainty, improving the precision of historical climate reconstructions.
Ingo Richter, Ping Chang, Ping-Gin Chiu, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Takeshi Doi, Dietmar Dommenget, Guillaume Gastineau, Zoe E. Gillett, Aixue Hu, Takahito Kataoka, Noel S. Keenlyside, Fred Kucharski, Yuko M. Okumura, Wonsun Park, Malte F. Stuecker, Andréa S. Taschetto, Chunzai Wang, Stephen G. Yeager, and Sang-Wook Yeh
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2587–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical ocean basins influence each other through multiple pathways and mechanisms, referred to here as tropical basin interaction (TBI). Many researchers have examined TBI using comprehensive climate models but have obtained conflicting results. This may be partly due to differences in experiment protocols and partly due to systematic model errors. The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP) aims to address this problem by designing a set of TBI experiments that will be performed by multiple models.
Daniel F. J. Gunning, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Emilie Capron, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2479–2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work documents the first results from ZEMBA: an energy balance model of the climate system. The model is a computationally efficient tool designed to study the response of climate to changes in the Earth's orbit. We demonstrate that ZEMBA reproduces many features of the Earth's climate for both the pre-industrial period and the Earth's most recent cold extreme – the Last Glacial Maximum. We intend to develop ZEMBA further and investigate the glacial cycles of the last 2.5 million years.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2443–2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions has significant socio-economic impacts. In this study, we develop and apply a new weakly coupled ocean data assimilation (WCODA) system to a coupled climate model. The WCODA system improves simulations of ocean temperature and salinity across many global regions. This system is meant to advance our understanding of the ocean's role in climate predictability.
Liwen Wang, Qian Li, Qi Lv, Xuan Peng, and Wei You
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2427–2442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our research presents a novel deep learning approach called "TemDeep" for downscaling atmospheric variables at arbitrary time resolutions based on temporal coherence. Results show that our method can accurately recover evolution details superior to other methods, reaching 53.7 % in the restoration rate. Our findings are important for advancing weather forecasting models and enabling more precise and reliable predictions to support disaster preparedness, agriculture, and sustainable development.
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ensemble consistency test (ECT) and its ultrafast variant (UF-ECT) have become powerful tools in the development community for the identification of unwanted changes in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We develop a generalized setup framework to enable easy adoption of the ECT approach for other model developers and communities. This framework specifies test parameters to accurately characterize model variability and balance test sensitivity and computational cost.
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe, calibrate and test the Danish Center for Earth System Science (DCESS) II model, a new, broad, adaptable and fast Earth system model. DCESS II is designed for global simulations over timescales of years to millions of years using limited computer resources like a personal computer. With its flexibility and comprehensive treatment of the global carbon cycle, DCESS II is a useful, computationally friendly tool for simulations of past climates as well as for future Earth system projections.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied carbon–nitrogen coupling in Earth system models by developing a global carbon–nitrogen cycle model (CNit v1.0) within the widely used emulator MAGICC. CNit effectively reproduced the global carbon–nitrogen cycle dynamics observed in complex models. Our results show persistent nitrogen limitations on plant growth (net primary production) from 1850 to 2100, suggesting that nitrogen deficiency may constrain future land carbon sequestration.
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding historical isoprene emission changes is important for predicting future climate, but trends and their controlling factors remain uncertain. This study shows that long-term isoprene trends vary among Earth system models mainly due to partially incorporating CO2 effects and land cover changes rather than to climate. Future models that refine these factors’ effects on isoprene emissions, along with long-term observations, are essential for better understanding plant–climate interactions.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed carbon and nitrogen mass conservation in data from various Earth system models. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies between flux and pool size data, where cumulative imbalances can reach hundreds of gigatons of carbon or nitrogen. These imbalances appear primarily due to missing or inconsistently reported fluxes – especially for land-use and fire emissions. To enhance data quality, we recommend that future climate data protocols address this issue at the reporting stage.
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river runoff, which is crucial for managing water resources and understanding climate impacts, can be challenging. This study introduces a new method using convolutional long short-term memory (ConvLSTM) networks, a machine learning model that processes spatial and temporal data. Focusing on the Baltic Sea region, our model uses weather data as input to predict daily river runoff for 97 rivers.
Tao Zhang, Cyril Morcrette, Meng Zhang, Wuyin Lin, Shaocheng Xie, Ye Liu, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Joana Rodrigues
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1917–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) struggle with the uncertainties associated with parameterizing subgrid physics. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer a solution by learning the important relationships and features from high-resolution models. To incorporate ML parameterizations into ESMs, we develop a Fortran–Python interface that allows for calling Python functions within Fortran-based ESMs. Through two case studies, this interface demonstrates its feasibility, modularity, and effectiveness.
Kostas Tsigaridis, Andrew S. Ackerman, Igor Aleinov, Mark A. Chandler, Thomas L. Clune, Christopher M. Colose, Anthony D. Del Genio, Maxwell Kelley, Nancy Y. Kiang, Anthony Leboissetier, Jan P. Perlwitz, Reto A. Ruedy, Gary L. Russell, Linda E. Sohl, Michael J. Way, and Eric T. Wolf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the second generation of ROCKE-3D, a generalized 3-dimensional model for use in Solar System and exoplanetary simulations of rocky planet climates. We quantify how the different component choices affect model results, and discuss strengths and limitations of using each component, together with how one can select which component to use. ROCKE-3D is publicly available and tutorial sessions are available for the community, greatly facilitating its use by any interested group.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Huilin Huang, Yun Qian, Gautam Bisht, Jiali Wang, Tirthankar Chakraborty, Dalei Hao, Jianfeng Li, Travis Thurber, Balwinder Singh, Zhao Yang, Ye Liu, Pengfei Xue, William J. Sacks, Ethan Coon, and Robert Hetland
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1427–1443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We integrate the E3SM Land Model (ELM) with the WRF model through the Lightweight Infrastructure for Land Atmosphere Coupling (LILAC) Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF). This framework includes a top-level driver, LILAC, for variable communication between WRF and ELM and ESMF caps for ELM initialization, execution, and finalization. The LILAC–ESMF framework maintains the integrity of the ELM's source code structure and facilitates the transfer of future ELM model developments to WRF-ELM.
Michael Nole, Jonah Bartrand, Fawz Naim, and Glenn Hammond
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1413–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Safe carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is likely to be critical for mitigating some of the most severe effects of climate change. We present a simulation framework for modeling CO2 storage beneath the seafloor, where CO2 can form a solid. This can aid in permanent CO2 storage for long periods of time. Our models show what a commercial-scale CO2 injection would look like in a marine environment. We discuss what would need to be considered when designing a subsea CO2 injection.
Reyk Börner, Jan O. Haerter, and Romain Fiévet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1333–1356, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The daily cycle of sea surface temperature (SST) impacts clouds above the ocean and could influence the clustering of thunderstorms linked to extreme rainfall and hurricanes. However, daily SST variability is often poorly represented in modeling studies of how clouds cluster. We present a simple, wind-responsive model of upper-ocean temperature for use in atmospheric simulations. Evaluating the model against observations, we show that it performs significantly better than common slab models.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Jordi Buckley Paules, Simone Fatichi, Bonnie Warring, and Athanasios Paschalis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1287–1305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate enhancements to the process-based T&C model aimed at improving its representation of crop growth and management practices. The updated model, T&C-CROP, enables applications such as analysing the hydrological and carbon storage impacts of land use transitions (e.g. conversions between crops, forests, and pastures) and optimizing irrigation and fertilization strategies in response to climate change.
Sébastien Masson, Swen Jullien, Eric Maisonnave, David Gill, Guillaume Samson, Mathieu Le Corre, and Lionel Renault
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1241–1263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article details a new feature we implemented in the popular regional atmospheric model WRF. This feature allows for data exchange between WRF and any other model (e.g. an ocean model) using the coupling library Ocean–Atmosphere–Sea–Ice–Soil Model Coupling Toolkit (OASIS3-MCT). This coupling interface is designed to be non-intrusive, flexible and modular. It also offers the possibility of taking into account the nested zooms used in WRF or in the models with which it is coupled.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Ulrich G. Wortmann, Tina Tsan, Mahrukh Niazi, Irene A. Ma, Ruben Navasardyan, Magnus-Roland Marun, Bernardo S. Chede, Jingwen Zhong, and Morgan Wolfe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1155–1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a user-friendly Python library that simplifies the creation of models to study earth system processes, such as the carbon cycle and ocean chemistry. It enhances learning by emphasizing concepts over programming and is accessible to students and researchers alike. By automating complex calculations and promoting code clarity, ESBMTK accelerates model development while improving reproducibility and the usability of scientific research.
Florian Zabel, Matthias Knüttel, and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1067–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CropSuite is a new open-source crop suitability model. It provides a GUI and a wide range of options, including a spatial downscaling of climate data. We apply CropSuite to 48 staple and opportunity crops at a 1 km spatial resolution in Africa. We find that climate variability significantly impacts suitable areas but also affects optimal sowing dates and multiple cropping potential. The results provide valuable information for climate impact assessments, adaptation, and land-use planning.
Kerstin Hartung, Bastian Kern, Nils-Arne Dreier, Jörn Geisbüsch, Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Wilton Jaciel Loch, Florian Prill, and Daniel Rieger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1001–1015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (ICON) model system Community Interface (ComIn) library supports connecting third-party modules to the ICON model. Third-party modules can range from simple diagnostic Python scripts to full chemistry models. ComIn offers a low barrier for code extensions to ICON, provides multi-language support (Fortran, C/C++, and Python), and reduces the migration effort in response to new ICON releases. This paper presents the ComIn design principles and a range of use cases.
Daniel Ries, Katherine Goode, Kellie McClernon, and Benjamin Hillman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1041–1065, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning has advanced research in the climate science domain, but its models are difficult to understand. In order to understand the impacts and consequences of climate interventions such as stratospheric aerosol injection, complex models are often necessary. We use a case study to illustrate how we can understand the inner workings of a complex model. We present this technique as an exploratory tool that can be used to quickly discover and assess relationships in complex climate data.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Panagiotis Adamidis, Erik Pfister, Hendryk Bockelmann, Dominik Zobel, Jens-Olaf Beismann, and Marek Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 905–919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we investigated performance indicators of the climate model ICON (ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic) on different compute architectures to answer the question of how to generate high-resolution climate simulations. Evidently, it is not enough to use more computing units of the conventionally used architectures; higher memory throughput is the most promising approach. More potential can be gained from single-node optimization rather than simply increasing the number of compute nodes.
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites have observed earth's emission of infrared radiation since the 1970s. Because infrared wavelengths interact with the atmosphere in distinct ways, these observations contain information about the earth and atmosphere. We present a tool that runs alongside global climate models and produces output that can be directly compared with satellite measurements of infrared radiation. We then use this tool for climate model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design.
Maria Vittoria Struglia, Alessandro Anav, Marta Antonelli, Sandro Calmanti, Franco Catalano, Alessandro Dell'Aquila, Emanuela Pichelli, and Giovanna Pisacane
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of downscaling global climate projections for the Mediterranean and Italian regions aiming to produce high-resolution climate information for the assessment of climate change signals, focusing on extreme events. A general warming is foreseen by the end of century with a mean precipitation reduction accompanied, over Italian Peninsula, by a strong increase in the intensity of extreme precipitation events, particularly relevant for the high emissions scenario during autumn
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study aimed to improve the representation of wheat and rice in a land model for the Indian region. The modified model performed significantly better than the default model in simulating crop phenology, yield, and carbon, water, and energy fluxes compared to observations. The study highlights the need for global land models to use region-specific crop parameters for accurately simulating vegetation processes and land surface processes.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the skill in simulating the Australian climate of some of the latest generation of regional climate models. We show when and where the models simulate this climate with high skill versus model limitations. We show how new models perform relative to the previous-generation models, assessing how model design features may underlie key performance improvements. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new climate models that simulate Australia’s future climate at regional scales, including at an unprecedented resolution of 4 km for 1950–2100. We describe the model design process used to create these new climate models. We show how the new models perform relative to previous-generation models and compare their climate projections. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide climate model design and the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone, and greenhouse gases alone, among others, are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies, and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved the calculation of how aerosols in the air interact with radiation in WRF-Chem. The original model used a simplified method, but we developed a more accurate approach. We found that this method significantly changes the properties of the estimated aerosols and their effects on radiation, especially for dust aerosols. It also impacts the simulated weather conditions. Our work highlights the importance of correctly representing aerosol–radiation interactions in models.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
Catherine Guiavarc'h, David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alex Megann, Helene Hewitt, Michael J. Bell, Daley Calvert, Dan Copsey, Bablu Sinha, Sophia Moreton, Pierre Mathiot, and Bo An
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 377–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Ocean and Sea Ice configuration version 9 (GOSI9) is the new UK hierarchy of model configurations based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) and available at three resolutions. It will be used for various applications, e.g. weather forecasting and climate prediction. It improves upon the previous version by reducing global temperature and salinity biases and enhancing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Andy Richling, Jens Grieger, and Henning W. Rust
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 361–375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The performance of weather and climate prediction systems is variable in time and space. It is of interest how this performance varies in different situations. We provide a decomposition of a skill score (a measure of forecast performance) as a tool for detailed assessment of performance variability to support model development or forecast improvement. The framework is exemplified with decadal forecasts to assess the impact of different ocean states in the North Atlantic on temperature forecast.
Maria R. Russo, Sadie L. Bartholomew, David Hassell, Alex M. Mason, Erica Neininger, A. James Perman, David A. J. Sproson, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Nathan Luke Abraham
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 181–191, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-181-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-181-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Observational data and modelling capabilities have expanded in recent years, but there are still barriers preventing these two data sources from being used in synergy. Proper comparison requires generating, storing, and handling a large amount of data. This work describes the first step in the development of a new set of software tools, the VISION toolkit, which can enable the easy and efficient integration of observational and model data required for model evaluation.
Bijan Fallah, Masoud Rostami, Emmanuele Russo, Paula Harder, Christoph Menz, Peter Hoffmann, Iulii Didovets, and Fred F. Hattermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 161–180, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We tried to contribute to a local climate change impact study in central Asia, a region that is water-scarce and vulnerable to global climate change. We use regional models and machine learning to produce reliable local data from global climate models. We find that regional models show more realistic and detailed changes in heavy precipitation than global climate models. Our work can help assess the future risks of extreme events and plan adaptation strategies in central Asia.
Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Jörg Benke, Ruth Comer, Birgit Hassler, Emma Hogan, Peter Kalverla, Axel Lauer, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Francesco Nattino, Patrick Peglar, Valeriu Predoi, Stef Smeets, Stephen Worsley, Martin Yeo, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-236, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-236, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models. Here, we describe recent significant improvements of ESMValTool’s computational efficiency including parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing. Evaluations with the enhanced version of ESMValTool are faster, use less computational resources, and can handle input data larger than the available memory.
Thomas Rackow, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Milinski, Irina Sandu, Razvan Aguridan, Peter Bechtold, Sebastian Beyer, Jean Bidlot, Souhail Boussetta, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Dueben, Emanuel Dutra, Richard Forbes, Rohit Ghosh, Helge F. Goessling, Ioan Hadade, Jan Hegewald, Thomas Jung, Sarah Keeley, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Aleksei Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Josh Kousal, Christian Kühnlein, Pedro Maciel, Kristian Mogensen, Tiago Quintino, Inna Polichtchouk, Balthasar Reuter, Domokos Sármány, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jan Streffing, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Steffen Tietsche, Mirco Valentini, Benoît Vannière, Nils Wedi, Lorenzo Zampieri, and Florian Ziemen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 33–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed global climate model simulations have been created based on a numerical weather prediction model, offering more accurate spatial detail down to the scale of individual cities ("kilometre-scale") and a better understanding of climate phenomena such as atmospheric storms, whirls in the ocean, and cracks in sea ice. The new model aims to provide globally consistent information on local climate change with greater precision, benefiting environmental planning and local impact modelling.
Hui Wan, Abhishek Yenpure, Berk Geveci, Richard C. Easter, Philip J. Rasch, Kai Zhang, and Xubin Zeng
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4020, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In E3SMv2 and many other global climate models, the simulated anthropogenic aerosol influence on the Earth's energy balance is sensitive to the presence of clouds with very low droplet number concentrations. Numerical experiments conducted in this study suggest that mid- and high-latitude low-level stratus occurring under weak turbulence is an important cloud regime for understanding the causes of very low cloud droplet number concentrations in global climate simulations.
Yilin Fang, Hoang Viet Tran, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 19–32, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-19-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-19-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Hurricanes may worsen water quality in the lower Mississippi River basin (LMRB) by increasing nutrient runoff. We found that runoff parameterizations greatly affect nitrate–nitrogen runoff simulated using an Earth system land model. Our simulations predicted increased nitrogen runoff in the LMRB during Hurricane Ida in 2021, albeit less pronounced than the observations, indicating areas for model improvement to better understand and manage nutrient runoff loss during hurricanes in the region.
Sian Megan Chilcott and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-203, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-203, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are expensive to run and often underestimate how sensitive Arctic sea ice is to climate change. To address this, we developed a simple model that emulates the response of sea ice to global warming. We find the remaining carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that will avoid a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean is lower than previous estimates of 821 Gigatonnes of CO2. Our model also provides insights into the future of winter sea ice, examining a larger ensemble than previously possible.
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...
