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
Climate model Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread (ClimSIPS v1.0.1) for regional applications
Anna L. Merrifield
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Lukas Brunner
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Ruth Lorenz
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Vincent Humphrey
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Reto Knutti
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Related authors
Lukas Brunner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Anna L. Merrifield, Ruth Lorenz, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects of historical climate and their degree of interdependence. Our method is found to increase projection skill and to correct for structurally similar models. The weighted end-of-century mean warming (2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014) is 3.7 °C with a likely (66 %) range of 3.1 to 4.6 °C for the strong climate change scenario SSP5-8.5; this is a reduction of 0.4 °C compared with the unweighted mean.
Anna Louise Merrifield, Lukas Brunner, Ruth Lorenz, Iselin Medhaug, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 807–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Justifiable uncertainty estimates of future change in northern European winter and Mediterranean summer temperature can be obtained by weighting a multi-model ensemble comprised of projections from different climate models and multiple projections from the same climate model. Weights reduce the influence of model biases and handle dependence by identifying a projection's model of origin from historical characteristics; contributions from the same model are scaled by the number of members.
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
Introducing a new floodplain scheme in ORCHIDEE (version 7885): validation and evaluation over the Pantanal wetlands
URock 2023a: an open-source GIS-based wind model for complex urban settings
DASH: a MATLAB toolbox for paleoclimate data assimilation
Comparing the Performance of Julia on CPUs versus GPUs and Julia-MPI versus Fortran-MPI: a case study with MPAS-Ocean (Version 7.1)
All aboard! Earth system investigations with the CH2O-CHOO TRAIN v1.0
The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5.0.3)
The Teddy tool v1.1: temporal disaggregation of daily climate model data for climate impact analysis
Assimilation of the AMSU-A radiances using the CESM (v2.1.0) and the DART (v9.11.13)–RTTOV (v12.3)
Modernizing the open-source community Noah with multi-parameterization options (Noah-MP) land surface model (version 5.0) with enhanced modularity, interoperability, and applicability
Simulated stable water isotopes during the mid-Holocene and pre-industrial periods using AWI-ESM-2.1-wiso
Rainbows and climate change: a tutorial on climate model diagnostics and parameterization
ModE-Sim – a medium-sized atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) ensemble to study climate variability during the modern era (1420 to 2009)
MESMAR v1: a new regional coupled climate model for downscaling, predictability, and data assimilation studies in the Mediterranean region
IceTFT v1.0.0: interpretable long-term prediction of Arctic sea ice extent with deep learning
The KNMI Large Ensemble Time Slice (KNMI–LENTIS)
ENSO statistics, teleconnections, and atmosphere–ocean coupling in the Taiwan Earth System Model version 1
Using probabilistic machine learning to better model temporal patterns in parameterizations: a case study with the Lorenz 96 model
The Regional Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (RAMIP)
DSCIM-Coastal v1.1: an open-source modeling platform for global impacts of sea level rise
TIMBER v0.1: a conceptual framework for emulating temperature responses to tree cover change
Recalibration of a three-dimensional water quality model with a newly developed autocalibration toolkit (EFDC-ACT v1.0.0): how much improvement will be achieved with a wider hydrological variability?
Description and evaluation of the JULES-ES set-up for ISIMIP2b
Simplified Kalman smoother and ensemble Kalman smoother for improving reanalyses
Modelling the terrestrial nitrogen and phosphorus cycle in the UVic ESCM
Modeling river water temperature with limiting forcing data: Air2stream v1.0.0, machine learning and multiple regression
A machine learning approach targeting parameter estimation for plant functional type coexistence modeling using ELM-FATES (v2.0)
Modeling and evaluating the effects of irrigation on land-atmosphere interaction in South-West Europe with the regional climate model REMO2020-iMOVE using a newly developed parameterization
The fully coupled regionally refined model of E3SM version 2: overview of the atmosphere, land, and river results
The mixed-layer depth in the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP): impact of resolving mesoscale eddies
A new simplified parameterization of secondary organic aerosol in the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2; CAM6.3)
Deep learning for stochastic precipitation generation – deep SPG v1.0
Developing spring wheat in the Noah-MP land surface model (v4.4) for growing season dynamics and responses to temperature stress
Robust 4D climate-optimal flight planning in structured airspace using parallelized simulation on GPUs: ROOST V1.0
The Earth system model CLIMBER-X v1.0 – Part 2: The global carbon cycle
SMLFire1.0: a stochastic machine learning (SML) model for wildfire activity in the western United States
LandInG 1.0: a toolbox to derive input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem modelling at variable resolutions from heterogeneous sources
Conservation of heat and mass in P-SKRIPS version 1: the coupled atmosphere–ice–ocean model of the Ross Sea
Predicting the climate impact of aviation for en-route emissions: the algorithmic climate change function submodel ACCF 1.0 of EMAC 2.53
Implementation of a machine-learned gas optics parameterization in the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System: RRTMGP-NN 2.0
Differentiable programming for Earth system modeling
Evaluation of CMIP6 model performances in simulating fire weather spatiotemporal variability on global and regional scales
Data-driven aeolian dust emission scheme for climate modelling evaluated with EMAC 2.55.2
Testing the reconstruction of modelled particulate organic carbon from surface ecosystem components using PlankTOM12 and machine learning
An improved method of the Globally Resolved Energy Balance model by the Bayesian networks
Assessing predicted cirrus ice properties between two deterministic ice formation parameterizations
Various ways of using empirical orthogonal functions for climate model evaluation
C-Coupler3.0: an integrated coupler infrastructure for Earth system modelling
FEOTS v0.0.0: a new offline code for the fast equilibration of tracers in the ocean
Pace v0.2: a Python-based performance-portable atmospheric model
Earth System Model Aerosol-Cloud Diagnostics Package (ESMAC Diags) Version 2: Assessments of Aerosols, Clouds and Aerosol-Cloud Interactions Through Field Campaign and Long-Term Observations
Anthony Schrapffer, Jan Polcher, Anna Sörensson, and Lluís Fita
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5755–5782, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5755-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The present paper introduces a floodplain scheme for a high-resolution land surface model river routing. It was developed and evaluated over one of the world’s largest floodplains: the Pantanal in South America. This shows the impact of tropical floodplains on land surface conditions (soil moisture, temperature) and on land–atmosphere fluxes and highlights the potential impact of floodplains on land–atmosphere interactions and the importance of integrating this module in coupled simulations.
Jérémy Bernard, Fredrik Lindberg, and Sandro Oswald
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5703–5727, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5703-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5703-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The UMEP plug-in integrated in the free QGIS software can now calculate the spatial variation of the wind speed within urban settings. This paper shows that the new wind model, URock, generally fits observations well and highlights the main needed improvements. According to this work, pedestrian wind fields and outdoor thermal comfort can now simply be estimated by any QGIS user (researchers, students, and practitioners).
Jonathan King, Jessica Tierney, Matthew Osman, Emily J. Judd, and Kevin J. Anchukaitis
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5653–5683, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5653-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5653-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Paleoclimate data assimilation is a useful method that allows researchers to combine climate models with natural archives of past climates. However, it can be difficult to implement in practice. To facilitate this method, we present DASH, a MATLAB toolbox. The toolbox provides routines that implement common steps of paleoclimate data assimilation, and it can be used to implement assimilations for a wide variety of time periods, spatial regions, data networks, and analytical algorithms.
Siddhartha Bishnu, Robert R. Strauss, and Mark R. Petersen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5539–5559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5539-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5539-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Here we test Julia, a relatively new programming language, which is designed to be simple to write, but also fast on advanced computer architectures. We found that Julia is both convenient and fast, but there is no free lunch. Our first attempt to develop an ocean model in Julia was relatively easy, but the code was slow. After several months of further development, we created a Julia code that is as fast on supercomputers as a Fortran ocean model.
Tyler Kukla, Daniel E. Ibarra, Kimberly V. Lau, and Jeremy K. C. Rugenstein
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5515–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5515-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5515-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The CH2O-CHOO TRAIN model can simulate how climate and the long-term carbon cycle interact across millions of years on a standard PC. While efficient, the model accounts for many factors including the location of land masses, the spatial pattern of the water cycle, and fundamental climate feedbacks. The model is a powerful tool for investigating how short-term climate processes can affect long-term changes in the Earth system.
Jason Neil Steven Cole, Knut von Salzen, Jiangnan Li, John Scinocca, David Plummer, Vivek Arora, Norman McFarlane, Michael Lazare, Murray MacKay, and Diana Verseghy
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5427–5448, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5427-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5427-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5) is used to simulate on a global scale the climate of Earth's atmosphere, land, and lakes. We document changes to the physics in CanAM5 since the last major version of the model (CanAM4) and evaluate the climate simulated relative to observations and CanAM4. The climate simulated by CanAM5 is similar to CanAM4, but there are improvements, including better simulation of temperature and precipitation over the Amazon and better simulation of cloud.
Florian Zabel and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5383–5399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5383-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5383-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Today, most climate model data are provided at daily time steps. However, more and more models from different sectors, such as energy, water, agriculture, and health, require climate information at a sub-daily temporal resolution for a more robust and reliable climate impact assessment. Here we describe and validate the Teddy tool, a new model for the temporal disaggregation of daily climate model data for climate impact analysis.
Young-Chan Noh, Yonghan Choi, Hyo-Jong Song, Kevin Raeder, Joo-Hong Kim, and Youngchae Kwon
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5365–5382, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5365-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5365-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is the first attempt to assimilate the observations of microwave temperature sounders into the global climate forecast model in which the satellite observations have not been assimilated in the past. To do this, preprocessing schemes are developed to make the satellite observations suitable to be assimilated. In the assimilation experiments, the model analysis is significantly improved by assimilating the observations of microwave temperature sounders.
Cenlin He, Prasanth Valayamkunnath, Michael Barlage, Fei Chen, David Gochis, Ryan Cabell, Tim Schneider, Roy Rasmussen, Guo-Yue Niu, Zong-Liang Yang, Dev Niyogi, and Michael Ek
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5131–5151, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5131-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5131-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Noah-MP is one of the most widely used open-source community land surface models in the world, designed for applications ranging from uncoupled land surface and ecohydrological process studies to coupled numerical weather prediction and decadal climate simulations. To facilitate model developments and applications, we modernize Noah-MP by adopting modern Fortran code and data structures and standards, which substantially enhance model modularity, interoperability, and applicability.
Xiaoxu Shi, Alexandre Cauquoin, Gerrit Lohmann, Lukas Jonkers, Qiang Wang, Hu Yang, Yuchen Sun, and Martin Werner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5153–5178, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5153-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5153-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new climate model with isotopic capabilities and simulated the pre-industrial and mid-Holocene periods. Despite certain regional model biases, the modeled isotope composition is in good agreement with observations and reconstructions. Based on our analyses, the observed isotope–temperature relationship in polar regions may have a summertime bias. Using daily model outputs, we developed a novel isotope-based approach to determine the onset date of the West African summer monsoon.
Andrew Gettelman
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4937–4956, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4937-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4937-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A representation of rainbows is developed for a climate model. The diagnostic raises many common issues. Simulated rainbows are evaluated against limited observations. The pattern of rainbows in the model matches observations and theory about when and where rainbows are most common. The diagnostic is used to assess the past and future state of rainbows. Changes to clouds from climate change are expected to increase rainbows as cloud cover decreases in a warmer world.
Ralf Hand, Eric Samakinwa, Laura Lipfert, and Stefan Brönnimann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4853–4866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4853-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4853-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
ModE-Sim is an ensemble of simulations with an atmosphere model. It uses observed sea surface temperatures, sea ice conditions, and volcanic aerosols for 1420 to 2009 as model input while accounting for uncertainties in these conditions. This generates several representations of the possible climate given these preconditions. Such a setup can be useful to understand the mechanisms that contribute to climate variability. This paper describes the setup of ModE-Sim and evaluates its performance.
Andrea Storto, Yassmin Hesham Essa, Vincenzo de Toma, Alessandro Anav, Gianmaria Sannino, Rosalia Santoleri, and Chunxue Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4811–4833, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4811-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4811-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Regional climate models are a fundamental tool for a very large number of applications and are being increasingly used within climate services, together with other complementary approaches. Here, we introduce a new regional coupled model, intended to be later extended to a full Earth system model, for climate investigations within the Mediterranean region, coupled data assimilation experiments, and several downscaling exercises (reanalyses and long-range predictions).
Bin Mu, Xiaodan Luo, Shijin Yuan, and Xi Liang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4677–4697, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4677-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4677-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
To improve the long-term forecast skill for sea ice extent (SIE), we introduce IceTFT, which directly predicts 12 months of averaged Arctic SIE. The results show that IceTFT has higher forecasting skill. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of the variables in the IceTFT model. These sensitivities can help researchers study the mechanisms of sea ice development, and they also provide useful references for the selection of variables in data assimilation or the input of deep learning models.
Laura Muntjewerf, Richard Bintanja, Thomas Reerink, and Karin van der Wiel
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4581–4597, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4581-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4581-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The KNMI Large Ensemble Time Slice (KNMI–LENTIS) is a large ensemble of global climate model simulations with EC-Earth3. It covers two climate scenarios by focusing on two time slices: the present day (2000–2009) and a future +2 K climate (2075–2084 in the SSP2-4.5 scenario). We have 1600 simulated years for the two climates with (sub-)daily output frequency. The sampled climate variability allows for robust and in-depth research into (compound) extreme events such as heat waves and droughts.
Yi-Chi Wang, Wan-Ling Tseng, Yu-Luen Chen, Shih-Yu Lee, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, and Hsin-Chien Liang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4599–4616, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4599-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4599-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study focuses on evaluating the performance of the Taiwan Earth System Model version 1 (TaiESM1) in simulating the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a significant tropical climate pattern with global impacts. Our findings reveal that TaiESM1 effectively captures several characteristics of ENSO, such as its seasonal variation and remote teleconnections. Its pronounced ENSO strength bias is also thoroughly investigated, aiming to gain insights to improve climate model performance.
Raghul Parthipan, Hannah M. Christensen, J. Scott Hosking, and Damon J. Wischik
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4501–4519, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4501-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4501-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
How can we create better climate models? We tackle this by proposing a data-driven successor to the existing approach for capturing key temporal trends in climate models. We combine probability, allowing us to represent uncertainty, with machine learning, a technique to learn relationships from data which are undiscoverable to humans. Our model is often superior to existing baselines when tested in a simple atmospheric simulation.
Laura J. Wilcox, Robert J. Allen, Bjørn H. Samset, Massimo A. Bollasina, Paul T. Griffiths, James Keeble, Marianne T. Lund, Risto Makkonen, Joonas Merikanto, Declan O'Donnell, David J. Paynter, Geeta G. Persad, Steven T. Rumbold, Toshihiko Takemura, Kostas Tsigaridis, Sabine Undorf, and Daniel M. Westervelt
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4451–4479, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Changes in anthropogenic aerosol emissions have strongly contributed to global and regional climate change. However, the size of these regional impacts and the way they arise are still uncertain. With large changes in aerosol emissions a possibility over the next few decades, it is important to better quantify the potential role of aerosol in future regional climate change. The Regional Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project will deliver experiments designed to facilitate this.
Nicholas Depsky, Ian Bolliger, Daniel Allen, Jun Ho Choi, Michael Delgado, Michael Greenstone, Ali Hamidi, Trevor Houser, Robert E. Kopp, and Solomon Hsiang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4331–4366, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4331-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4331-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents a novel open-source modeling platform for evaluating future sea level rise (SLR) impacts. Using nearly 10 000 discrete coastline segments around the world, we estimate 21st-century costs for 230 SLR and socioeconomic scenarios. We find that annual end-of-century costs range from USD 100 billion under a 2 °C warming scenario with proactive adaptation to 7 trillion under a 4 °C warming scenario with minimal adaptation, illustrating the cost-effectiveness of coastal adaptation.
Shruti Nath, Lukas Gudmundsson, Jonas Schwaab, Gregory Duveiller, Steven J. De Hertog, Suqi Guo, Felix Havermann, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Julia Pongratz, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Carl F. Schleussner, Wim Thiery, and Quentin Lejeune
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4283–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4283-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4283-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Tree cover changes play a significant role in climate mitigation and adaptation. Their regional impacts are key in informing national-level decisions and prioritising areas for conservation efforts. We present a first step towards exploring these regional impacts using a simple statistical device, i.e. emulator. The emulator only needs to train on climate model outputs representing the maximal impacts of aff-, re-, and deforestation, from which it explores plausible in-between outcomes itself.
Chen Zhang and Tianyu Fu
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4315–4329, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A new automatic calibration toolkit was developed and implemented into the recalibration of a 3-D water quality model, with observations in a wider range of hydrological variability. Compared to the model calibrated with the original strategy, the recalibrated model performed significantly better in modeled total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen. Our work indicates that hydrological variability in the calibration periods has a non-negligible impact on the water quality models.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Bo Dong, Ross Bannister, Yumeng Chen, Alison Fowler, and Keith Haines
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4233–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4233-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4233-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Traditional Kalman smoothers are expensive to apply in large global ocean operational forecast and reanalysis systems. We develop a cost-efficient method to overcome the technical constraints and to improve the performance of existing reanalysis products.
Makcim L. De Sisto, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, and Sophia Antoniello
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4113–4136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4113-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4113-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed a nitrogen and phosphorus cycle in an intermediate-complexity Earth system climate model. We found that the implementation of nutrient limitation in simulations has reduced the capacity of land to take up atmospheric carbon and has decreased the vegetation biomass, hence, improving the fidelity of the response of land to simulated atmospheric CO2 rise.
Manuel C. Almeida and Pedro S. Coelho
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4083–4112, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4083-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4083-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water temperature (WT) datasets of low-order rivers are scarce. In this study, five different models are used to predict the WT of 83 rivers. Generally, the results show that the models' hyperparameter optimization is essential and that to minimize the prediction error it is relevant to apply all the models considered in this study. Results also show that there is a logarithmic correlation among the error of the predicted river WT and the watershed time of concentration.
Lingcheng Li, Yilin Fang, Zhonghua Zheng, Mingjie Shi, Marcos Longo, Charles D. Koven, Jennifer A. Holm, Rosie A. Fisher, Nate G. McDowell, Jeffrey Chambers, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4017–4040, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4017-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4017-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately modeling plant coexistence in vegetation demographic models like ELM-FATES is challenging. This study proposes a repeatable method that uses machine-learning-based surrogate models to optimize plant trait parameters in ELM-FATES. Our approach significantly improves plant coexistence modeling, thus reducing errors. It has important implications for modeling ecosystem dynamics in response to climate change.
Christina Asmus, Peter Hoffmann, Joni-Pekka Pietikäinen, Jürgen Böhner, and Diana Rechid
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-890, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-890, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Irrigation modifies the land surface and soil conditions. The caused effects can be quantified using numerical climate models. Our study introduces a new irrigation parameterization, which is simulating the effects of irrigation on land, atmosphere, and vegetation. We applied the parameterization and evaluated the results in their physical consistency. We found an improvement in the model results in the 2 m temperature representation in comparison with observational data for our study.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Anne Marie Treguier, Clement de Boyer Montégut, Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Andy McC. Hogg, Doroteaciro Iovino, Andrew E. Kiss, Julien Le Sommer, Yiwen Li, Pengfei Lin, Camille Lique, Hailong Liu, Guillaume Serazin, Dmitry Sidorenko, Qiang Wang, Xiaobio Xu, and Steve Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3849–3872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean mixed layer is the interface between the ocean interior and the atmosphere and plays a key role in climate variability. We evaluate the performance of the new generation of ocean models for climate studies, designed to resolve
ocean eddies, which are the largest source of ocean variability and modulate the mixed-layer properties. We find that the mixed-layer depth is better represented in eddy-rich models but, unfortunately, not uniformly across the globe and not in all models.
Duseong S. Jo, Simone Tilmes, Louisa K. Emmons, Siyuan Wang, and Francis Vitt
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3893–3906, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3893-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3893-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A new simple secondary organic aerosol (SOA) scheme has been developed for the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) based on the complex SOA scheme in CAM with detailed chemistry (CAM-chem). The CAM with the new SOA scheme shows better agreements with CAM-chem in terms of aerosol concentrations and radiative fluxes, which ensures more consistent results between different compsets in the Community Earth System Model. The new SOA scheme also has technical advantages for future developments.
Leroy J. Bird, Matthew G. W. Walker, Greg E. Bodeker, Isaac H. Campbell, Guangzhong Liu, Swapna Josmi Sam, Jared Lewis, and Suzanne M. Rosier
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3785–3808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3785-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3785-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Deriving the statistics of expected future changes in extreme precipitation is challenging due to these events being rare. Regional climate models (RCMs) are computationally prohibitive for generating ensembles capable of capturing large numbers of extreme precipitation events with statistical robustness. Stochastic precipitation generators (SPGs) provide an alternative to RCMs. We describe a novel single-site SPG that learns the statistics of precipitation using a machine-learning approach.
Zhe Zhang, Yanping Li, Fei Chen, Phillip Harder, Warren Helgason, James Famiglietti, Prasanth Valayamkunnath, Cenlin He, and Zhenhua Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3809–3825, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3809-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3809-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Crop models incorporated in Earth system models are essential to accurately simulate crop growth processes on Earth's surface and agricultural production. In this study, we aim to model the spring wheat in the Northern Great Plains, focusing on three aspects: (1) develop the wheat model at a point scale, (2) apply dynamic planting and harvest schedules, and (3) adopt a revised heat stress function. The results show substantial improvements and have great importance for agricultural production.
Abolfazl Simorgh, Manuel Soler, Daniel González-Arribas, Florian Linke, Benjamin Lührs, Maximilian M. Meuser, Simone Dietmüller, Sigrun Matthes, Hiroshi Yamashita, Feijia Yin, Federica Castino, Volker Grewe, and Sabine Baumann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3723–3748, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3723-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3723-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper addresses the robust climate optimal trajectory planning problem under uncertain meteorological conditions within the structured airspace. Based on the optimization methodology, a Python library has been developed, which can be accessed using the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7121862. The developed tool is capable of providing robust trajectories taking into account all probable realizations of meteorological conditions provided by an EPS computationally very fast.
Matteo Willeit, Tatiana Ilyina, Bo Liu, Christoph Heinze, Mahé Perrette, Malte Heinemann, Daniela Dalmonech, Victor Brovkin, Guy Munhoven, Janine Börker, Jens Hartmann, Gibran Romero-Mujalli, and Andrey Ganopolski
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3501–3534, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3501-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3501-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper we present the carbon cycle component of the newly developed fast Earth system model CLIMBER-X. The model can be run with interactive atmospheric CO2 to investigate the feedbacks between climate and the carbon cycle on temporal scales ranging from decades to > 100 000 years. CLIMBER-X is expected to be a useful tool for studying past climate–carbon cycle changes and for the investigation of the long-term future evolution of the Earth system.
Jatan Buch, A. Park Williams, Caroline S. Juang, Winslow D. Hansen, and Pierre Gentine
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3407–3433, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3407-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3407-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We leverage machine learning techniques to construct a statistical model of grid-scale fire frequencies and sizes using climate, vegetation, and human predictors. Our model reproduces the observed trends in fire activity across multiple regions and timescales. We provide uncertainty estimates to inform resource allocation plans for fuel treatment and fire management. Altogether the accuracy and efficiency of our model make it ideal for coupled use with large-scale dynamical vegetation models.
Sebastian Ostberg, Christoph Müller, Jens Heinke, and Sibyll Schaphoff
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3375–3406, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new toolbox for generating input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem models from diverse and partially conflicting data sources. The toolbox documents the sources and processing of data and is designed to make inconsistencies between source datasets transparent so that users can make their own decisions on how to resolve these should they not be content with our default assumptions. As an example, we use the toolbox to create input datasets at two different spatial resolutions.
Alena Malyarenko, Alexandra Gossart, Rui Sun, and Mario Krapp
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3355–3373, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3355-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3355-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Simultaneous modelling of ocean, sea ice, and atmosphere in coupled models is critical for understanding all of the processes that happen in the Antarctic. Here we have developed a coupled model for the Ross Sea, P-SKRIPS, that conserves heat and mass between the ocean and sea ice model (MITgcm) and the atmosphere model (PWRF). We have shown that our developments reduce the model drift, which is important for long-term simulations. P-SKRIPS shows good results in modelling coastal polynyas.
Feijia Yin, Volker Grewe, Federica Castino, Pratik Rao, Sigrun Matthes, Katrin Dahlmann, Simone Dietmüller, Christine Frömming, Hiroshi Yamashita, Patrick Peter, Emma Klingaman, Keith P. Shine, Benjamin Lührs, and Florian Linke
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3313–3334, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3313-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3313-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a newly developed submodel ACCF V1.0 based on the MESSy 2.53.0 infrastructure. The ACCF V1.0 is based on the prototype algorithmic climate change functions (aCCFs) v1.0 to enable climate-optimized flight trajectories. One highlight of this paper is that we describe a consistent full set of aCCFs formulas with respect to fuel scenario and metrics. We demonstrate the usage of the ACCF submodel using AirTraf V2.0 to optimize trajectories for cost and climate impact.
Peter Ukkonen and Robin J. Hogan
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3241–3261, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3241-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3241-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate and weather models suffer from uncertainties resulting from approximated processes. Solar and thermal radiation is one example, as it is computationally too costly to simulate precisely. This has led to attempts to replace radiation codes based on physical equations with neural networks (NNs) that are faster but uncertain. In this paper we use global weather simulations to demonstrate that a middle-ground approach of using NNs only to predict optical properties is accurate and reliable.
Maximilian Gelbrecht, Alistair White, Sebastian Bathiany, and Niklas Boers
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3123–3135, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3123-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3123-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Differential programming is a technique that enables the automatic computation of derivatives of the output of models with respect to model parameters. Applying these techniques to Earth system modeling leverages the increasing availability of high-quality data to improve the models themselves. This can be done by either using calibration techniques that use gradient-based optimization or incorporating machine learning methods that can learn previously unresolved influences directly from data.
Carolina Gallo, Jonathan M. Eden, Bastien Dieppois, Igor Drobyshev, Peter Z. Fulé, Jesús San-Miguel-Ayanz, and Matthew Blackett
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3103–3122, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3103-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3103-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study conducts the first global evaluation of the latest generation of global climate models to simulate a set of fire weather indicators from the Canadian Fire Weather Index System. Models are shown to perform relatively strongly at the global scale, but they show substantial regional and seasonal differences. The results demonstrate the value of model evaluation and selection in producing reliable fire danger projections, ultimately to support decision-making and forest management.
Klaus Klingmüller and Jos Lelieveld
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3013–3028, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3013-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3013-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Desert dust has significant impacts on climate, public health, infrastructure and ecosystems. An impact assessment requires numerical predictions, which are challenging because the dust emissions are not well known. We present a novel approach using satellite observations and machine learning to more accurately estimate the emissions and to improve the model simulations.
Anna Denvil-Sommer, Erik T. Buitenhuis, Rainer Kiko, Fabien Lombard, Lionel Guidi, and Corinne Le Quéré
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2995–3012, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2995-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2995-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Using outputs of global biogeochemical ocean model and machine learning methods, we demonstrate that it will be possible to identify linkages between surface environmental and ecosystem structure and the export of carbon to depth by sinking organic particles using real observations. It will be possible to use this knowledge to improve both our understanding of ecosystem dynamics and of their functional representation within models.
Zhenxia Liu, Zengjie Wang, Jian Wang, Zhengfang Zhang, Dongshuang Li, Zhaoyuan Yu, Linwang Yuan, and Wen Luo
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2939–2955, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2939-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2939-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces an improved method of the Globally Resolved Energy Balance (GREB) model by the Bayesian network. The improved method constructs a coarse–fine structure that combines a dynamical model with a statistical model based on employing the GREB model as the global framework and utilizing Bayesian networks as the local optimization. The results show that the improved model has better applicability and stability on a global scale and maintains good robustness on the timescale.
Colin Tully, David Neubauer, and Ulrike Lohmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2957–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2957-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2957-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A new method to simulate deterministic ice nucleation processes based on the differential activated fraction was evaluated against a cumulative approach. Box model simulations of heterogeneous-only ice nucleation within cirrus suggest that the latter approach likely underpredicts the ice crystal number concentration. Longer simulations with a GCM show that choosing between these two approaches impacts ice nucleation competition within cirrus but leads to small and insignificant climate effects.
Rasmus E. Benestad, Abdelkader Mezghani, Julia Lutz, Andreas Dobler, Kajsa M. Parding, and Oskar A. Landgren
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2899–2913, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2899-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2899-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A mathematical method known as common EOFs is not widely used within the climate research community, but it offers innovative ways of evaluating climate models. We show how common EOFs can be used to evaluate large ensembles of global climate model simulations and distill information about their ability to reproduce salient features of the regional climate. We can say that they represent a kind of machine learning (ML) for dealing with big data.
Li Liu, Chao Sun, Xinzhu Yu, Hao Yu, Qingu Jiang, Xingliang Li, Ruizhe Li, Bin Wang, Xueshun Shen, and Guangwen Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2833–2850, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2833-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2833-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
C-Coupler3.0 is an integrated coupler infrastructure with new features, i.e. a series of parallel-optimization technologies, a common halo-exchange library, a common module-integration framework, a common framework for conveniently developing a weakly coupled ensemble data assimilation system, and a common framework for flexibly inputting and outputting fields in parallel. It is able to handle coupling under much finer resolutions (e.g. more than 100 million horizontal grid cells).
Joseph Schoonover, Wilbert Weijer, and Jiaxu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2795–2809, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2795-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2795-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
FEOTS aims to enhance the value of data produced by state-of-the-art climate models by providing a framework to diagnose and use ocean transport operators for offline passive tracer simulations. We show that we can capture ocean transport operators from a validated climate model and employ these operators to estimate water mass budgets in an offline regional simulation, using a small fraction of the compute resources required to run a full climate simulation.
Johann Dahm, Eddie Davis, Florian Deconinck, Oliver Elbert, Rhea George, Jeremy McGibbon, Tobias Wicky, Elynn Wu, Christopher Kung, Tal Ben-Nun, Lucas Harris, Linus Groner, and Oliver Fuhrer
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2719–2736, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2719-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2719-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is hard for scientists to write code which is efficient on different kinds of supercomputers. Python is popular for its user-friendliness. We converted a Fortran code, simulating Earth's atmosphere, into Python. This new code auto-converts to a faster language for processors or graphic cards. Our code runs 3.5–4 times faster on graphic cards than the original on processors in a specific supercomputer system.
Shuaiqi Tang, Adam C. Varble, Jerome D. Fast, Kai Zhang, Peng Wu, Xiquan Dong, Fan Mei, Mikhail Pekour, Joseph C. Hardin, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-51, 2023
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
To assess the ability of Earth System Model (ESM) predictions, we developed a tool called ESMAC Diags to understand the details of how aerosols, clouds, and ACI are represented in ESMs, and this paper describes its version 2 functionality. We compared the model predictions with measurements taken by airplanes, ships, satellites, and ground instruments over four regions over the world. Results show that this new tool can help identify model problems and guide future development of ESMs.
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...
