Articles | Volume 16, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
15 Nov 2023
Model evaluation paper |
| 15 Nov 2023
| 15 Nov 2023
Improvements in the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) through systematic model analysis: CanESM5.0 and CanESM5.1
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
James Anstey
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Vivek Arora
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Ruth Digby
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Nathan Gillett
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Viatcheslav Kharin
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
William Merryfield
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Catherine Reader
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
John Scinocca
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Neil Swart
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
John Virgin
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Carsten Abraham
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Jason Cole
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Nicolas Lambert
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Woo-Sung Lee
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Yongxiao Liang
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Elizaveta Malinina
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Landon Rieger
Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Knut von Salzen
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Christian Seiler
School of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Clint Seinen
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Andrew Shao
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Canada, At-Scale Engineering, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Libo Wang
Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Duo Yang
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Related authors
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone and greenhouse gases alone are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Mara Y. McPartland, Tomas Lovato, Charles D. Koven, Jamie D. Wilson, Briony Turner, Colleen M. Petrik, José Licón-Saláiz, Fang Li, Fanny Lhardy, Jaclyn Clement Kinney, Michio Kawamiya, Birgit Hassler, Nathan P. Gillett, Cheikh Modou Noreyni Fall, Christopher Danek, Chris M. Brierley, Ana Bastos, and Oliver Andrews
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an international consortium of climate modeling groups that produce coordinated experiments in order to evaluate human influence on the climate and test knowledge of Earth systems. This paper describes the data requested for Earth systems research in CMIP7. We detail the request for model output of the carbon cycle, the flows of energy among the atmosphere, land and the oceans, and interactions between these and the global climate.
Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, Najda Villefranque, Zhipeng Qu, Almudena Velázquez Blázquez, Carlos Domenech, Shannon L. Mason, and Robin J. Hogan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3095–3107, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3095-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3095-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Measurements made by three instruments aboard EarthCARE are used to retrieve estimates of cloud and aerosol properties. A radiative closure assessment of these retrievals is performed by the ACMB-DF processor. Radiative transfer models acting on retrieved information produce broadband radiances commensurate with measurements made by EarthCARE’s broadband radiometer. Measured and modelled radiances for small domains are compared, and the likelihood of them differing by 10 W m2 defines the closure.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Christian Seiler
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2517, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2517, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
This study demonstrates how machine learning and global Earth observations can enhance simulations of the land carbon cycle. Optimizing key model parameters improves the accuracy of historical carbon fluxes and has a substantial impact on future projections. Results suggest that future carbon uptake may be weaker than previously estimated, underscoring the importance of improved parameter optimization in climate models
Daniel Letros, Liam Graham, Adam Bourassa, Doug Degenstein, Paul Loewen, Landon Rieger, and Nick Lloyd
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-67, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-67, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Aerosol Limb Imager (ALI) is an optical instrument which measures stratospheric aerosols. These aerosols are of interest to atmospheric science as they have a significant impact on the Earth's climate. ALI has the ability to measure the polarization of atmospheric light over a wide spectral range, which is a novel ability for the measurement ALI uses. We demonstrate and discuss ALI capability, and how the polarized information may improve aerosol information for this type measurement.
Libo Wang, Lawrence Mudryk, Joe R. Melton, Colleen Mortimer, Jason Cole, Gesa Meyer, Paul Bartlett, and Mickaël Lalande
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that an alternate snow cover fraction (SCF) parameterization significantly improves SCF simulated in the CLASSIC model in mountainous areas for all three choices of meteorological datasets. Annual mean bias, unbiased root mean squared area, and correlation improve by 75 %, 32 %, and 7 % when evaluated with MODIS SCF observations over the Northern Hemisphere. We also link relative biases in the meteorological forcing data to differences in simulated snow water equivalent and SCF.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Nikolina Mileva, Julia Pongratz, Vivek K. Arora, Akihiko Ito, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Sonali S. McDermid, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Roland Séférian, Yanwu Zhang, and Wolfgang Buermann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Despite forests being so important for mitigating climate change, there are still uncertainties about how much the changes in forest cover contribute to the cooling/warming of the climate. Climate models and real-world observations often disagree about the magnitude and even the direction of these changes. We constrain climate models scenarios of widespread deforestation with satellite and in-situ data and show that models still have difficulties representing the movement of heat and water.
Ruth A. R. Digby, Knut von Salzen, Adam H. Monahan, Nathan P. Gillett, and Jiangnan Li
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3109–3130, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3109-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3109-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The refractive index of black carbon (BCRI), which determines how much energy black carbon absorbs and scatters, is difficult to measure, and different climate models use different values. We show that varying the BCRI across commonly used values can increase absorbing aerosol optical depth by 42 % and the warming effect from interactions between black carbon and radiation by 47 %, an appreciable fraction of the overall spread between models reported in recent literature assessments.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Dillon Elsbury, Federico Serva, Julie M. Caron, Seung-Yoon Back, Clara Orbe, Jadwiga H. Richter, James A. Anstey, Neal Butchart, Chih-Chieh Chen, Javier García-Serrano, Anne Glanville, Yoshio Kawatani, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Francois Lott, Hiroaki Naoe, Scott Osprey, Froila M. Palmeiro, Seok-Woo Son, Masakazu Taguchi, Stefan Versick, Shingo Watanabe, and Kohei Yoshida
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3950, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3950, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines how the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), a major tropical weather pattern, is influenced by persistent El Niño or La Niña sea surface temperature conditions during winter. Using a coordinated set of climate model experiments, we find that El Niño strengthens Kelvin waves, speeding up MJO propagation, while La Niña strengthens Rossby waves, slowing it down. Better understanding these interactions between the MJO and ocean helps us better understand natural climate variability.
Vivek K. Arora, Aranildo Lima, and Rajesh Shrestha
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 291–312, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-291-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-291-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a Canada-wide assessment of climate change impacts on the hydro-climatology of the region's major river basins. We find that precipitation, runoff, and temperature are all expected to increase over Canada in the future. The northerly Mackenzie and Yukon rivers are relatively less affected by climate change compared to the southerly Fraser and Columbia rivers, which are located in the milder northwestern Pacific region.
Alexei Rozanov, Christine Pohl, Carlo Arosio, Adam Bourassa, Klaus Bramstedt, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6677–6695, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6677-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6677-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new algorithm to retrieve vertical distributions of aerosol extinction coefficients in the stratosphere. The algorithm is applied to measurements of scattered solar light from the spaceborne OMPS-LP (Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite Limb Profiler) instrument. The retrieval results are compared to data from other spaceborne instruments and used to investigate the evolution of the aerosol plume following the eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai volcano in January 2022.
Viktoria F. Sofieva, Alexei Rozanov, Monika Szelag, John P. Burrows, Christian Retscher, Robert Damadeo, Doug Degenstein, Landon A. Rieger, and Adam Bourassa
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 5227–5241, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5227-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5227-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate-related studies need information about the distribution of stratospheric aerosols, which influence the energy balance of the Earth’s atmosphere. In this work, we present a merged dataset of vertically resolved stratospheric aerosol extinction coefficients, which is derived from data of six limb and occultation satellite instruments. The created aerosol climate record covers the period from October 1984 to December 2023. It can be used in various climate-related studies.
Yoshio Kawatani, Kevin Hamilton, Shingo Watanabe, James A. Anstey, Jadwiga H. Richter, Neal Butchart, Clara Orbe, Scott M. Osprey, Hiroaki Naoe, Dillon Elsbury, Chih-Chieh Chen, Javier García-Serrano, Anne Glanville, Tobias Kerzenmacher, François Lott, Froila M. Palmerio, Mijeong Park, Federico Serva, Masakazu Taguchi, Stefan Versick, and Kohei Yoshioda
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3270, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3270, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) of the tropical stratospheric mean winds has been relatively steady over the 7 decades it has been observed, but there are always cycle-to-cycle variations. This study used several global atmospheric models to investigate systematic modulation of the QBO by the El Niño/La Niña cycle. All models simulated shorter periods during El Niño, in agreement with observations. By contrast, the models disagreed even on the sign of the El Niño effect on QBO amplitude.
Cynthia Whaley, Montana Etten-Bohm, Courtney Schumacher, Ayodeji Akingunola, Vivek Arora, Jason Cole, Michael Lazare, David Plummer, Knut von Salzen, and Barbara Winter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7141–7155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes how lightning was added as a process in the Canadian Earth System Model in order to interactively respond to climate changes. As lightning is an important cause of global wildfires, this new model development allows for more realistic projections of how wildfires may change in the future, responding to a changing climate.
Misa Ishizawa, Douglas Chan, Doug Worthy, Elton Chan, Felix Vogel, Joe R. Melton, and Vivek K. Arora
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10013–10038, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) emissions in Canada for 2007–2017 were estimated using Canada’s surface greenhouse gas measurements. The estimated emissions show no significant trend, but emission uncertainty was reduced as more measurement sites became available. Notably for climate change, we find the wetland CH4 emissions show a positive correlation with surface air temperature in summer. Canada’s measurement network could monitor future CH4 emission changes and compliance with climate change mitigation goals.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, and Libo Wang
Biogeosciences, 21, 3339–3371, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3339-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Terrestrial biosphere models can either prescribe the geographical distribution of biomes or simulate them dynamically, capturing climate-change-driven biome shifts. We isolate and examine the differences between these different land cover implementations. We find that the simulated terrestrial carbon sink at the end of the 21st century is twice as large in simulations with dynamic land cover than in simulations with prescribed land cover due to important range shifts in the Arctic and Amazon.
Christine Pohl, Felix Wrana, Alexei Rozanov, Terry Deshler, Elizaveta Malinina, Christian von Savigny, Landon A. Rieger, Adam E. Bourassa, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4153–4181, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Knowledge of stratospheric aerosol characteristics is important for understanding chemical and climate aerosol feedbacks. Two particle size distribution parameters, the aerosol extinction coefficient and the effective radius, are obtained from SCIAMACHY limb observations. The aerosol characteristics show good agreement with independent data sets from balloon-borne and satellite observations. This data set expands the limited knowledge of stratospheric aerosol characteristics.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Roberto Bilbao, Pablo Ortega, Didier Swingedouw, Leon Hermanson, Panos Athanasiadis, Rosie Eade, Marion Devilliers, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Nick Dunstone, An-Chi Ho, William Merryfield, Juliette Mignot, Dario Nicolì, Margarida Samsó, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Xian Wu, and Stephen Yeager
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 501–525, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-501-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-501-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In recent decades three major volcanic eruptions have occurred: Mount Agung in 1963, El Chichón in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. In this article we explore the climatic impacts of these volcanic eruptions with a purposefully designed set of simulations from six CMIP6 decadal prediction systems. We analyse the radiative and dynamical responses and show that including the volcanic forcing in these predictions is important to reproduce the observed surface temperature variations.
Ruth A. R. Digby, Nathan P. Gillett, Adam H. Monahan, Knut von Salzen, Antonis Gkikas, Qianqian Song, and Zhibo Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2077–2097, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2077-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2077-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The COVID-19 lockdowns reduced aerosol emissions. We ask whether these reductions affected regional aerosol optical depth (AOD) and compare the observed changes to predictions from Earth system models. Only India has an observed AOD reduction outside of typical variability. Models overestimate the response in some regions, but when key biases have been addressed, the agreement is improved. Our results suggest that current models can realistically predict the effects of future emission changes.
Shannon L. Mason, Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, Nicole Docter, David P. Donovan, Robin J. Hogan, Anja Hünerbein, Pavlos Kollias, Bernat Puigdomènech Treserras, Zhipeng Qu, Ulla Wandinger, and Gerd-Jan van Zadelhoff
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 875–898, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-875-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-875-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
When the EarthCARE mission enters its operational phase, many retrieval data products will be available, which will overlap both in terms of the measurements they use and the geophysical quantities they report. In this pre-launch study, we use simulated EarthCARE scenes to compare the coverage and performance of many data products from the European Space Agency production model, with the intention of better understanding the relation between products and providing a compact guide to users.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
Neil C. Swart, Torge Martin, Rebecca Beadling, Jia-Jia Chen, Christopher Danek, Matthew H. England, Riccardo Farneti, Stephen M. Griffies, Tore Hattermann, Judith Hauck, F. Alexander Haumann, André Jüling, Qian Li, John Marshall, Morven Muilwijk, Andrew G. Pauling, Ariaan Purich, Inga J. Smith, and Max Thomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7289–7309, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7289-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7289-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Current climate models typically do not include full representation of ice sheets. As the climate warms and the ice sheets melt, they add freshwater to the ocean. This freshwater can influence climate change, for example by causing more sea ice to form. In this paper we propose a set of experiments to test the influence of this missing meltwater from Antarctica using multiple different climate models.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Zhipeng Qu, David P. Donovan, Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, Mark W. Shephard, and Vincent Huijnen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4927–4946, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The EarthCARE satellite mission Level 2 algorithm development requires realistic 3D cloud and aerosol scenes along the satellite orbits. One of the best ways to produce these scenes is to use a high-resolution numerical weather prediction model to simulate atmospheric conditions at 250 m horizontal resolution. This paper describes the production and validation of three EarthCARE test scenes.
Patrick J. Duke, Roberta C. Hamme, Debby Ianson, Peter Landschützer, Mohamed M. M. Ahmed, Neil C. Swart, and Paul A. Covert
Biogeosciences, 20, 3919–3941, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3919-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3919-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean is both impacted by climate change and helps mitigate its effects through taking up carbon from the atmosphere. We used a machine learning approach to investigate what controls open-ocean carbon uptake in the northeast Pacific open ocean. Marine heatwaves that lasted 2–3 years increased uptake, while the upwelling strength of the Alaskan Gyre controlled uptake over 10-year time periods. The trend from 1998–2019 suggests carbon uptake in the northeast Pacific open ocean is increasing.
Jason N. S. Cole, Howard W. Barker, Zhipeng Qu, Najda Villefranque, and Mark W. Shephard
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4271–4288, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4271-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4271-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Measurements from the EarthCARE satellite mission will be used to retrieve profiles of cloud and aerosol properties. These retrievals are combined with auxiliary information about surface properties and atmospheric state, e.g., temperature and water vapor. This information allows computation of 1D and 3D solar and thermal radiative transfer for small domains, which are compared with coincident radiometer observations to continually assess EarthCARE retrievals.
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.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Almut Arneth, Stefanie Falk, Atul K. Jain, Fortunat Joos, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Naiqing Pan, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Nicolas Vuichard, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 767–795, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Nitrogen (N) is an essential limiting nutrient to terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration. We evaluate N cycling in an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models. We find that variability in N processes across models is large. Models tended to overestimate C storage per unit N in vegetation and soil, which could have consequences for projecting the future terrestrial C sink. However, N cycling measurements are highly uncertain, and more are necessary to guide the development of N cycling in models.
Libo Wang, Vivek K. Arora, Paul Bartlett, Ed Chan, and Salvatore R. Curasi
Biogeosciences, 20, 2265–2282, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Plant functional types (PFTs) are groups of plant species used to represent vegetation distribution in land surface models. There are large uncertainties associated with existing methods for mapping land cover datasets to PFTs. This study demonstrates how fine-resolution tree cover fraction and land cover datasets can be used to inform the PFT mapping process and reduce the uncertainties. The proposed largely objective method makes it easier to implement new land cover products in models.
Piers M. Forster, Christopher J. Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Blair Trewin, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Arlene Birt, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Lijing Cheng, Frank Dentener, Pierre Friedlingstein, José M. Gutiérrez, Johannes Gütschow, Bradley Hall, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, June-Yi Lee, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Jan C. Minx, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Robert Rohde, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Dominik Schumacher, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is a critical decade for climate action, but there is no annual tracking of the level of human-induced warming. We build on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports that are authoritative but published infrequently to create a set of key global climate indicators that can be tracked through time. Our hope is that this becomes an important annual publication that policymakers, media, scientists and the public can refer to.
Zhipeng Qu, Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, and Mark W. Shephard
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2319–2331, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2319-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2319-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes EarthCARE’s L2 product ACM-3D. It includes the scene construction algorithm (SCA) used to produce the indexes for reconstructing 3D atmospheric scene based on satellite nadir retrievals. It also provides the information about the buffer zone sizes of 3D assessment domains and the ranking scores for selecting the best 3D assessment domains. These output variables are needed to run 3D radiative transfer models for the radiative closure assessment of EarthCARE’s L2 retrievals.
Parsa Gooya, Neil C. Swart, and Roberta C. Hamme
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 383–398, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-383-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-383-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We report on the ocean carbon sink and sources of uptake uncertainty from the latest version of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. We diagnose the highly active regions for the sink and show how knowledge about historical regions of uptake will provide information about future regions of uptake change and uncertainty. We evaluate the dependence of uncertainty on the location and integration scale. Our results help make useful suggestions for both modeling and observational communities.
Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Libo Wang, and Sian Kou-Giesbrecht
Biogeosciences, 20, 1313–1355, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The behaviour of natural systems is now very often represented through mathematical models. These models represent our understanding of how nature works. Of course, nature does not care about our understanding. Since our understanding is not perfect, evaluating models is challenging, and there are uncertainties. This paper illustrates this uncertainty for land models and argues that evaluating models in light of the uncertainty in various components provides useful information.
Laura C. Jackson, Eduardo Alastrué de Asenjo, Katinka Bellomo, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Helmuth Haak, Aixue Hu, Johann Jungclaus, Warren Lee, Virna L. Meccia, Oleg Saenko, Andrew Shao, and Didier Swingedouw
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1975–1995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1975-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1975-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has an important impact on the climate. There are theories that freshening of the ocean might cause the AMOC to cross a tipping point (TP) beyond which recovery is difficult; however, it is unclear whether TPs exist in global climate models. Here, we outline a set of experiments designed to explore AMOC tipping points and sensitivity to additional freshwater input as part of the North Atlantic Hosing Model Intercomparison Project (NAHosMIP).
Jennifer Schallock, Christoph Brühl, Christine Bingen, Michael Höpfner, Landon Rieger, and Jos Lelieveld
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1169–1207, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1169-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1169-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We characterized the influence of volcanic aerosols for the period 1990–2019 and established a volcanic SO2 emission inventory that includes more than 500 eruptions. From limb-based satellite observations of SO2 and extinction, we derive 3D plumes of SO2 perturbations and injected mass by a novel method. We calculate instantaneous radiative forcing with a comprehensive chemisty climate model. Our results show that smaller eruptions can also contribute to the stratospheric aerosol forcing.
Cynthia H. Whaley, Kathy S. Law, Jens Liengaard Hjorth, Henrik Skov, Stephen R. Arnold, Joakim Langner, Jakob Boyd Pernov, Garance Bergeron, Ilann Bourgeois, Jesper H. Christensen, Rong-You Chien, Makoto Deushi, Xinyi Dong, Peter Effertz, Gregory Faluvegi, Mark Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Greg Huey, Ulas Im, Rigel Kivi, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Jeff Peischl, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Tom Ryerson, Ragnhild Skeie, Sverre Solberg, Manu A. Thomas, Chelsea Thompson, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven T. Turnock, Knut von Salzen, and David W. Tarasick
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 637–661, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-637-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-637-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study summarizes recent research on ozone in the Arctic, a sensitive and rapidly warming region. We find that the seasonal cycles of near-surface atmospheric ozone are variable depending on whether they are near the coast, inland, or at high altitude. Several global model simulations were evaluated, and we found that because models lack some of the ozone chemistry that is important for the coastal Arctic locations, they do not accurately simulate ozone there.
Sjoukje Y. Philip, Sarah F. Kew, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Faron S. Anslow, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Robert Vautard, Dim Coumou, Kristie L. Ebi, Julie Arrighi, Roop Singh, Maarten van Aalst, Carolina Pereira Marghidan, Michael Wehner, Wenchang Yang, Sihan Li, Dominik L. Schumacher, Mathias Hauser, Rémy Bonnet, Linh N. Luu, Flavio Lehner, Nathan Gillett, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Chris Rodell, Roland B. Stull, Rosie Howard, and Friederike E. L. Otto
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1689–1713, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1689-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1689-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In June 2021, the Pacific Northwest of the US and Canada saw record temperatures far exceeding those previously observed. This attribution study found such a severe heat wave would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change. Assuming no nonlinear interactions, such events have become at least 150 times more common, are about 2 °C hotter and will become even more common as warming continues. Therefore, adaptation and mitigation are urgently needed to prepare society.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
James R. Christian, Kenneth L. Denman, Hakase Hayashida, Amber M. Holdsworth, Warren G. Lee, Olivier G. J. Riche, Andrew E. Shao, Nadja Steiner, and Neil C. Swart
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4393–4424, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4393-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4393-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean chemistry and biology modules of the latest version of the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM5) are described in detail and evaluated against observations and other Earth system models. In the basic CanESM5 model, ocean biogeochemistry is similar to CanESM2 but embedded in a new ocean circulation model. In addition, an entirely new model, the Canadian Ocean Ecosystem model (CanESM5-CanOE), was developed. The most significant difference is that CanOE explicitly includes iron.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Cynthia H. Whaley, Rashed Mahmood, Knut von Salzen, Barbara Winter, Sabine Eckhardt, Stephen Arnold, Stephen Beagley, Silvia Becagli, Rong-You Chien, Jesper Christensen, Sujay Manish Damani, Xinyi Dong, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos Evangeliou, Gregory Faluvegi, Mark Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Fabio Giardi, Wanmin Gong, Jens Liengaard Hjorth, Lin Huang, Ulas Im, Yugo Kanaya, Srinath Krishnan, Zbigniew Klimont, Thomas Kühn, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Andreas Massling, Dirk Olivié, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Yiran Peng, David A. Plummer, Olga Popovicheva, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Maria Sand, Laura N. Saunders, Julia Schmale, Sangeeta Sharma, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Henrik Skov, Fumikazu Taketani, Manu A. Thomas, Rita Traversi, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven Turnock, Vito Vitale, Kaley A. Walker, Minqi Wang, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Tahya Weiss-Gibbons
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5775–5828, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5775-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5775-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Air pollutants, like ozone and soot, play a role in both global warming and air quality. Atmospheric models are often used to provide information to policy makers about current and future conditions under different emissions scenarios. In order to have confidence in those simulations, in this study we compare simulated air pollution from 18 state-of-the-art atmospheric models to measured air pollution in order to assess how well the models perform.
Hengqi Wang, Yiran Peng, Knut von Salzen, Yan Yang, Wei Zhou, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2949–2971, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol activation scheme is an important part of the general circulation model, but evaluations using observed data are mostly regional. This research introduced a numerically efficient aerosol activation scheme and evaluated it by using stratus and stratocumulus cloud data sampled during multiple aircraft campaigns in Canada, Chile, Brazil, and China. The decent performance indicates that the scheme is suitable for simulations of cloud droplet number concentrations over wide conditions.
Davide Zanchettin, Claudia Timmreck, Myriam Khodri, Anja Schmidt, Matthew Toohey, Manabu Abe, Slimane Bekki, Jason Cole, Shih-Wei Fang, Wuhu Feng, Gabriele Hegerl, Ben Johnson, Nicolas Lebas, Allegra N. LeGrande, Graham W. Mann, Lauren Marshall, Landon Rieger, Alan Robock, Sara Rubinetti, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Helen Weierbach
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides metadata and first analyses of the volc-pinatubo-full experiment of CMIP6-VolMIP. Results from six Earth system models reveal significant differences in radiative flux anomalies that trace back to different implementations of volcanic forcing. Surface responses are in contrast overall consistent across models, reflecting the large spread due to internal variability. A second phase of VolMIP shall consider both aspects toward improved protocol for volc-pinatubo-full.
Julia Schmale, Sangeeta Sharma, Stefano Decesari, Jakob Pernov, Andreas Massling, Hans-Christen Hansson, Knut von Salzen, Henrik Skov, Elisabeth Andrews, Patricia K. Quinn, Lucia M. Upchurch, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Rita Traversi, Stefania Gilardoni, Mauro Mazzola, James Laing, and Philip Hopke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3067–3096, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3067-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3067-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Long-term data sets of Arctic aerosol properties from 10 stations across the Arctic provide evidence that anthropogenic influence on the Arctic atmospheric chemical composition has declined in winter, a season which is typically dominated by mid-latitude emissions. The number of significant trends in summer is smaller than in winter, and overall the pattern is ambiguous with some significant positive and negative trends. This reflects the mixed influence of natural and anthropogenic emissions.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, William J. Merryfield, George J. Boer, Viatsheslav V. Kharin, Woo-Sung Lee, Christian Seiler, and James R. Christian
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6863–6891, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6863-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6863-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
CanESM5 decadal predictions that started from observed climate states represent the observed evolution of upper-ocean temperatures, surface climate, and the carbon cycle better than ones not started from observed climate states for several years into the forecast. This is due both to better representations of climate internal variability and to corrections of the model response to external forcing including changes in GHG emissions and aerosols.
Elizaveta Malinina, Alexei Rozanov, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandra Wallis, Carlo Arosio, Felix Wrana, Claudia Timmreck, Christian von Savigny, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14871–14891, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14871-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14871-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In the paper, changes in the stratospheric aerosol loading after the 2018 Ambae eruption were analyzed using OMPS-LP observations. The eruption was also simulated with the MAECHAM5-HAM global climate model. Generally, the model and observations agree very well. We attribute the good consistency of the results to a precisely determined altitude and mass of the volcanic injection, as well as nudging of the meteorological data. The radiative forcing from the eruption was estimated to be −0.13 W m−2.
Alexander J. Winkler, Ranga B. Myneni, Alexis Hannart, Stephen Sitch, Vanessa Haverd, Danica Lombardozzi, Vivek K. Arora, Julia Pongratz, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Daniel S. Goll, Etsushi Kato, Hanqin Tian, Almut Arneth, Pierre Friedlingstein, Atul K. Jain, Sönke Zaehle, and Victor Brovkin
Biogeosciences, 18, 4985–5010, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite observations since the early 1980s show that Earth's greening trend is slowing down and that browning clusters have been emerging, especially in the last 2 decades. A collection of model simulations in conjunction with causal theory points at climatic changes as a key driver of vegetation changes in natural ecosystems. Most models underestimate the observed vegetation browning, especially in tropical rainforests, which could be due to an excessive CO2 fertilization effect in models.
John G. Virgin, Christopher G. Fletcher, Jason N. S. Cole, Knut von Salzen, and Toni Mitovski
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5355–5372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity, or the amount of warming the Earth would exhibit a result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is a common metric used in assessments of climate models. Here, we compare climate sensitivity between two versions of the Canadian Earth System Model. We find the newest iteration of the model (version 5) to have higher climate sensitivity due to reductions in low-level clouds, which reflect radiation and cool the planet, as the surface warms.
Robin D. Lamboll, Chris D. Jones, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Stephanie Fiedler, Bjørn H. Samset, Nathan P. Gillett, Joeri Rogelj, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3683–3695, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Lockdowns to avoid the spread of COVID-19 have created an unprecedented reduction in human emissions. We can estimate the changes in emissions at a country level, but to make predictions about how this will affect our climate, we need more precise information about where the emissions happen. Here we combine older estimates of where emissions normally occur with very recent estimates of sector activity levels to enable different groups to make simulations of the climatic effects of lockdown.
Christian Seiler, Joe R. Melton, Vivek K. Arora, and Libo Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates how well the CLASSIC land surface model reproduces the energy, water, and carbon cycle when compared against a wide range of global observations. Special attention is paid to how uncertainties in the data used to drive and evaluate the model affect model skill. Our results show the importance of incorporating uncertainties when evaluating land surface models and that failing to do so may potentially misguide future model development.
Ghassan Taha, Robert Loughman, Tong Zhu, Larry Thomason, Jayanta Kar, Landon Rieger, and Adam Bourassa
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1015–1036, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work describes the newly released OMPS LP aerosol extinction profile multi-wavelength Version 2.0 algorithm and dataset. It is shown that the V2.0 aerosols exhibit significant improvements in OMPS LP retrieval performance in the Southern Hemisphere and at lower altitudes. The new product is compared to the SAGE III/ISS, OSIRIS and CALIPSO missions and shown to be of good quality and suitable for scientific studies.
Ali Asaadi and Vivek K. Arora
Biogeosciences, 18, 669–706, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-669-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-669-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
More than a quarter of the current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are taken up by land, reducing the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. This is because of the CO2 fertilization effect which benefits 80 % of global vegetation. However, if nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients cannot keep up with increasing atmospheric CO2, the magnitude of this terrestrial ecosystem service may reduce in future. This paper implements nitrogen constraints on photosynthesis in a model to understand the mechanisms involved.
Larry W. Thomason, Mahesh Kovilakam, Anja Schmidt, Christian von Savigny, Travis Knepp, and Landon Rieger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1143–1158, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1143-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1143-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Measurements of the impact of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric aerosol loading by space-based instruments show show a fairly well-behaved relationship between the magnitude and the apparent changes to aerosol size over several orders of magnitude. This directly measured relationship provides a unique opportunity to verify the performance of interactive aerosol models used in climate models.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Lukas O. Muser, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, Julia Bruckert, Ákos Horváth, Elizaveta Malinina, Sandra Wallis, Fred J. Prata, Alexei Rozanov, Christian von Savigny, Heike Vogel, and Bernhard Vogel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15015–15036, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15015-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15015-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Volcanic aerosols endanger aircraft and thus disrupt air travel globally. For aviation safety, it is vital to know the location and lifetime of such aerosols in the atmosphere. Here we show that the interaction of volcanic particles with each other eventually reduces their atmospheric lifetime. Moreover, we demonstrate that sunlight heats these particles, which lifts them several kilometers in the atmosphere. These findings support a more reliable forecast of volcanic aerosol dispersion.
Lena R. Boysen, Victor Brovkin, Julia Pongratz, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Nicolas Vuichard, Philippe Peylin, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yanwu Zhang, Matthias Rocher, Christine Delire, Roland Séférian, Vivek K. Arora, Lars Nieradzik, Peter Anthoni, Wim Thiery, Marysa M. Laguë, Deborah Lawrence, and Min-Hui Lo
Biogeosciences, 17, 5615–5638, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We find a biogeophysically induced global cooling with strong carbon losses in a 20 million square kilometre idealized deforestation experiment performed by nine CMIP6 Earth system models. It takes many decades for the temperature signal to emerge, with non-local effects playing an important role. Despite a consistent experimental setup, models diverge substantially in their climate responses. This study offers unprecedented insights for understanding land use change effects in CMIP6 models.
Stefan Noël, Klaus Bramstedt, Alexei Rozanov, Elizaveta Malinina, Heinrich Bovensmann, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 5643–5666, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5643-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5643-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A new approach to derive stratospheric aerosol extinction profiles from SCIAMACHY solar occultation measurements based on an onion-peeling method is presented. The resulting extinctions at 452, 525 and 750 nm compare well with other limb and occultation data from, e.g. SAGE and SCIAMACHY, but show small oscillating features which vanish in monthly anomalies. Major volcanic eruptions, polar stratospheric clouds and influences of the quasi-biennial oscillation can be identified in the time series.
Landon A. Rieger, Jason N. S. Cole, John C. Fyfe, Stephen Po-Chedley, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Paul J. Durack, Nathan P. Gillett, and Qi Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4831–4843, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Recently, the stratospheric aerosol forcing dataset used as an input to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 was updated. This work explores the impact of those changes on the modelled historical climates in the CanESM5 and EAMv1 models. Temperature differences in the stratosphere shortly after the Pinatubo eruption are found to be significant, but surface temperatures and precipitation do not show a significant change.
Cited articles
Anstey, J. and Sigmond, M.: CanESM5.0 and CanESM5.1 NetCDF files of bespoke experiments in the A4D paper [data set], https://crd-data-donnees-rdc.ec.gc.ca/CCCMA/publications/A4D/Sigmond_etal_GMD_CanESM5.0_to_5.1 (last access: 3 November 2023), 2023. a
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: A parameterization of leaf phenology for the terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models, Glob. Change Biol., 11, 39–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00890.x, 2005. a
Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L., Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270, 2011. a, b
Ayarzagüena, B., Charlton‐Perez, A. J., Butler, A. H., Hitchcock, P., Simpson, I. R., Polvani, L. M., Butchart, N., Gerber, E. P., Gray, L., Hassler, B., Lin, P., Lott, F., Manzini, E., Mizuta, R., Orbe, C., Osprey, S., Saint‐Martin, D., Sigmond, M., Taguchi, M., Volodin, E. M., and Watanabe, S.: Uncertainty in the Response of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and Stratosphere‐Troposphere Coupling to Quadrupled CO2 Concentrations in CMIP6 Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, 2169–8996, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032345, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f
Baldwin, M. P., Ayarzagüena, B., Birner, T., Butchart, N., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I., Garny, H., Gerber, E. P., Hegglin, M. I., Langematz, U., and Pedatella, N. M.: Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, Rev. Geophys., 59, e2020RG000708, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000708, 2021. a
Canadell, J., Monteiro, P., Costa, M., Cotrim da Cunha, L., Cox, P., Eliseev, A., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C., Lohila, A., Patra, P., Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S., and Zickfeld, K.: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 673–816, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.007, 2021. a
Charlton-Perez, A. J., Baldwin, M. P., Birner, T., Black, R. X., Butler, A. H., Calvo, N., Davis, N. a., Gerber, E. P., Gillett, N., Hardiman, S., Kim, J., Krüger, K., Lee, Y.-Y., Manzini, E., McDaniel, B. A., Polvani, L., Reichler, T., Shaw, T. A., Sigmond, M., Son, S.-W., Toohey, M., Wilcox, L., Yoden, S., Christiansen, B., Lott, F., Shindell, D., Yukimoto, S., and Watanabe, S.: On the lack of stratospheric dynamical variability in low-top versions of the CMIP5 models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 2494–2505, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50125, 2013. a
Chung, E.-S. and Soden, B. J.: An assessment of direct radiative forcing, radiative adjustments, and radiative feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models, J. Climate, 28, 4152–4170, 2015. a
Compo, G. P., Whitaker, J. S., Sardeshmukh, P. D., Matsui, N., Allan, R. J., Yin, X., Gleason, B. E., Vose, R. S., Rutledge, G., Bessemoulin, P., Brönnimann, S., Brunet, M., Crouthamel, R. I., Grant, A. N., Groisman, P. Y., Jones, P. D., Kruk, M. C., Kruger, A. C., Marshall, G. J., Maugeri, M., Mok, H. Y., Nordli, o., Ross, T. F., Trigo, R. M., Wang, X. L., Woodruff, S. D., and Worley, S. J.: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.776, 2011. a
Diner, D., Beckert, J., Reilly, T., Bruegge, C., Conel, J., Kahn, R., Martonchik, J., Ackerman, T., Davies, R., Gerstl, S., Gordon, H., Muller, J.-P., Myneni, R., Sellers, P., Pinty, B., and Verstraete, M.: Multi-Angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) Instrument Description and Experiment Overview, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 36, 1072–1087, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.700992, 1998. a, b
Domeisen, D. I., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M. P., Dunn-Sigouin, E., Furtado, J. C., Garfinkel, C. I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A. L., Lim, E. P., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C., Simpson, I. R., Son, S. W., and Taguchi, M.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 2. Predictability Arising From Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030923, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030923, 2020. a
Dong, Y., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Proistosescu, C., Battisti, D. S., Zhou, C., and Andrews, T.: Intermodel spread in the pattern effect and its contribution to climate sensitivity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, J. Climate, 33, 7755–7775, 2020. a
Eyring, V., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wenzel, S., Jones, C., Anav, A., Andrews, O., Cionni, I., Davin, E. L., Deser, C., Ehbrecht, C., Friedlingstein, P., Gleckler, P., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Hagemann, S., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Krasting, J., Kunert, D., Levine, R., Loew, A., Mäkelä, J., Martin, G., Mason, E., Phillips, A. S., Read, S., Rio, C., Roehrig, R., Senftleben, D., Sterl, A., van Ulft, L. H., Walton, J., Wang, S., and Williams, K. D.: ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016. a
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020. a
Eyring, V., Gillett, N., Rao, K. A., Barimalala, R., Parrillo, M. B., Bellouin, N., Cassou, C., Durack, P., Kosaka, Y., McGregor, S., Min, S., Morgenstern, O., and Sun, Y.: Human Influence on the Climate System, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., chap. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 423–552, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.005, 2021. a, b, c
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bopp, L., Chau, T. T. T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Currie, K. I., Decharme, B., Djeutchouang, L. M., Dou, X., Evans, W., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Gasser, T., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Luijkx, I. T., Jain, A., Jones, S. D., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, J., Marland, G., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Schwingshackl, C., Séférian, R., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Vuichard, N., Wada, C., Wanninkhof, R., Watson, A. J., Willis, D., Wiltshire, A. J., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, J.: Global Carbon Budget 2021, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022. a, b
Gastineau, G., Lott, F., Mignot, J., and Hourdin, F.: Alleviation of an Arctic Sea Ice Bias in a Coupled Model Through Modifications in the Subgrid-Scale Orographic Parameterization, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2020MS002111, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002111, 2020. a
Gent, P. R., Bryan, F. O., Danabasoglu, G., Doney, S. C., Holland, W. R., Large, W. G., and McWilliams, J. C.: The NCAR Climate System Model Global Ocean Component, J. Climate, 11, 1287–1306, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<1287:TNCSMG>2.0.CO;2, 1998. a
Gkikas, A., Proestakis, E., Amiridis, V., Kazadzis, S., Tomaso, E. D., Tsekeri, A., Marinou, E., Hatzianastassiou, N., and García-Pando, C. P.: ModIs Dust AeroSol (MIDAS): A global fine resolution dust optical depth dataset, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4244106, 2020. a
Gleckler, P. J., Doutriaux, C., Durack, P. J., Taylor, K. E., Zhang, Y., Williams, D. N., Mason, E., and Servonnat, J.: A more powerful reality test for climate models, Eos, 97, 20–24, 2016. a
Gregory, J., Ingram, W., Palmer, M., Jones, G., Stott, P., Thorpe, R., Lowe, J., Johns, T., and Williams, K.: A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004. a
Griffies, S. M., Danabasoglu, G., Durack, P. J., Adcroft, A. J., Balaji, V., Böning, C. W., Chassignet, E. P., Curchitser, E., Deshayes, J., Drange, H., Fox-Kemper, B., Gleckler, P. J., Gregory, J. M., Haak, H., Hallberg, R. W., Heimbach, P., Hewitt, H. T., Holland, D. M., Ilyina, T., Jungclaus, J. H., Komuro, Y., Krasting, J. P., Large, W. G., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., McDougall, T. J., Nurser, A. J. G., Orr, J. C., Pirani, A., Qiao, F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., Treguier, A. M., Tsujino, H., Uotila, P., Valdivieso, M., Wang, Q., Winton, M., and Yeager, S. G.: OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016. a
Guilyardi, E., Bellenger, H., Collins, M., Ferrett, S., Cai, W., and Wittenberg, A.: A first look at ENSO in CMIP5, Clivar Exchanges, 117, 29–32, 2012. a
Ham, Y.-G., Kim, J.-H., and Luo, J.-J.: Deep learning for multi-year ENSO forecasts, Nature, 573, 568–572, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1559-7, 2019. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hitchcock, P., Butler, A., Charlton-Perez, A., Garfinkel, C. I., Stockdale, T., Anstey, J., Mitchell, D., Domeisen, D. I. V., Wu, T., Lu, Y., Mastrangelo, D., Malguzzi, P., Lin, H., Muncaster, R., Merryfield, B., Sigmond, M., Xiang, B., Jia, L., Hyun, Y.-K., Oh, J., Specq, D., Simpson, I. R., Richter, J. H., Barton, C., Knight, J., Lim, E.-P., and Hendon, H.: Stratospheric Nudging And Predictable Surface Impacts (SNAPSI): a protocol for investigating the role of stratospheric polar vortex disturbances in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022. a
Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., 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
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, 1520–0442, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1, 2017. a
Jiang, W., Huang, P., Huang, G., and Ying, J.: Origins of the excessive westward extension of ENSO SST simulated in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, J. Climate, 34, 2839–2851, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0551.1, 2021. a
Jones, C. D., Hickman, J. E., Rumbold, S. T., Walton, J., Lamboll, R. D., Skeie, R. B., Fiedler, S., Forster, P. M., Rogelj, J., Abe, M., Botzet, M., Calvin, K., Cassou, C., Cole, J. N. S., Davini, P., Deushi, M., Dix, M., Fyfe, J. C., Gillett, N. P., Ilyina, T., Kawamiya, M., Kelley, M., Kharin, S., Koshiro, T., Li, H., Mackallah, C., Müller, W. A., Nabat, P., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., Ohgaito, R., Olivié, D., Oshima, N., Parodi, J., Reerink, T. J., Ren, L., Romanou, A., Séférian, R., Tang, Y., Timmreck, C., Tjiputra, J., Tourigny, E., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, H., Wu, M., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yang, Y., and Ziehn, T.: The Climate Response to Emissions Reductions Due to COVID-19: Initial Results From CovidMIP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091883, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091883, 2021. a, b, c
Jones, P. W.: First- and Second-Order Conservative Remapping Schemes for Grids in Spherical Coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 127, 2204–2210, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<2204:FASOCR>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Karpechko, A. Y., Afargan-Gerstman, H., Butler, A. H., Domeisen, D. I. V., Kretschmer, M., Lawrence, Z., Manzini, E., Sigmond, M., Simpson, I. R., and Wu, Z.: Northern Hemisphere Stratosphere-Troposphere Circulation Change in CMIP6 Models: 1. Inter-Model Spread and Scenario Sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036992, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036992, 2022. a
Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G., Doelling, D. R., Rutan, D. A., Caldwell, T. E., Yu, L., and Weller, R. A.: Surface Irradiances Consistent with CERES-Derived Top-of-Atmosphere Shortwave and Longwave Irradiances, J. Climate, 26, 2719–2740, 2013. a
King, M. D., Platnick, S., Menzel, W. P., Ackerman, S. A., and Hubanks, P. A.: Spatial and temporal distribution of clouds observed by MODIS onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote, 51, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2227333, 2013. a, b
Kostov, Y., Johnson, H. L., and Marshall, D. P.: AMOC sensitivity to surface buoyancy fluxes: the role of air-sea feedback mechanisms, Clim. Dynam., 53, 4521–4537, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04802-4, 2019. a
Lalande, M., Ménégoz, M., Krinner, G., Naegeli, K., and Wunderle, S.: Climate change in the High Mountain Asia in CMIP6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1061–1098, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1061-2021, 2021. a, b, c
Lange, S. and Büchner, M.: ISIMIP2a atmospheric climate input data (v1.0), ISIMIP Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.886955, 2020. a
Lee, J.-Y., Marotzke, J., Bala, G., Cao, L., Corti, S., Dunne, J., Engelbrecht, F., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Jones, C., Maycock, A., Mutemi, J., Ndiaye, O., Panickal, S., and Zhou, T.: Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based Projections and Near-Term Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 553–672, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.006, 2021. a, b, c
Liao, H., Wang, C., and Song, Z.: ENSO phase-locking biases from the CMIP5 to CMIP6 models and a possible explanation, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 189–190, 104943, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DSR2.2021.104943, 2021. a
Lin, H., Merryfield, W. J., Muncaster, R., Smith, G. C., Markovic, M., Dupont, F., Roy, F., Lemieux, J.-F., Dirkson, A., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W.-S., Charron, M., and Erfani, A.: The Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System Version 2 (CanSIPSv2), Weather Forecast., 35, 1317–1343, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0259.1, 2020. a
Liu, M., Ren, H.-L., Zhang, R., Ineson, S., and Wang, R.: ENSO phase-locking behavior in climate models: From CMIP5 to CMIP6, Environmental Research Communications, 3, 31004, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/abf295, 2021. a, b
Lott, F.: Alleviation of Stationary Biases in a GCM through a Mountain Drag Parameterization Scheme and a Simple Representation of Mountain Lift Forces, Mon. Weather Rev., 127, 788–801, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<0788:AOSBIA>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Madec, G. and the NEMO team: NEMO ocean engine, version 3.4, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Note du Pole de Modélisation 27, ISSN No 1288-1619, https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/39698/1/NEMO_book_v6039.pdf (last access: 14 November 2023), 2012. a
McFarlane, N. A., Boer, G., Blanchet, J., and Lazare, M.: The Canadian Climate Centre second-generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate, J. Climate, 5, 1013–1044, 1992. a
Meier, W. N., Fetterer, F., Windnagel, and Stewart, J. S.: NOAA/NSIDC Climate Data Record of Passive Microwave Sea Ice Concentration, Version 4, NSIDC [data set], https://doi.org/10.7265/efmz-2t65, 2021. a
Melton, J. R., Arora, V., Wisernig-Cojoc, E., Seiler, C., Fortier, M., Chan, E., and Teckentrup, L.: The Canadian Land Surface Scheme including Biogeochemical Cycles, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3522407, 2019. a
Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., Wisernig-Cojoc, E., Seiler, C., Fortier, M., Chan, E., and Teckentrup, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 1: Model framework and site-level performance, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2825–2850, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2825-2020, 2020. a
Merryfield, W. J., Lee, W.-S., Boer, G. J., Kharin, V. V., Scinocca, J. F., Flato, G. M., Ajayamohan, R. S., Fyfe, J. C., Tang, Y., and Polavarapu, S.: The Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System. Part I: Models and Initialization, Mon. Weather Rev., 141, 2910–2945, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00216.1, 2013. a, b, c, d, e
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Winn, J. P., Hogan, E., Killick, R. E., Dunn, R. J. H., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. D., and Simpson, I. R.: An Updated Assessment of Near-Surface Temperature Change From 1850: The HadCRUT5 Data Set, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2019JD032361, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032361, 2021. a
Mudryk, L.: Historical gridded snow water equivalent and snow cover fraction over Canada from remote sensing and land surface models, Government of Canada [data set], http://climate-scenarios.canada.ca/?page=blended-snow-data (last access: 3 November 2023), 2020. a
Neelin, J. D., Jin, F.-F., and Syu, H.-H.: Variations in ENSO phase locking, J. Climate, 13, 2570–2590, 2000. a
Notz, D. and SIMIP Community: Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086749, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, 2020. a
Omar, A. H., Winker, D. M., Vaughan, M. A., Hu, Y., Trepte, C. R., Ferrare, R. A., Lee, K.-P., Hostetler, C. A., Kittaka, C., Rogers, R. R., Kuehn, R. E., and Liu, Z.: The CALIPSO Automated Aerosol Classification and Lidar Ratio Selection Algorithm, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 1994–2014, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1231.1, 2009. a
Parkinson, C. L.: A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 14414–14423, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906556116, 2019. a
Planton, Y. Y., Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A. T., Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Bayr, T., McGregor, S., McPhaden, M. J., Power, S., Roehrig, R., Vialard, J., and Voldoire, A.: Evaluating climate models with the CLIVAR 2020 ENSO Metrics Package, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E193–E217, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0337.1, 2021. a, b, c
Platnick, S., King, M., and Hubanks, P.: MODIS Atmosphere L3 Monthly Product, NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System, Goddard Space Flight Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD08_M3.061, 2017. a
Polvani, L. M., Sun, L., Butler, A. H., Richter, J. H., and Deser, C.: Distinguishing Stratospheric Sudden Warmings from ENSO as Key Drivers of Wintertime Climate Variability over the North Atlantic and Eurasia, J. Climate, 30, 1959–1969, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0277.1, 2017. a
Qaddouri, A. and Lee, V.: The Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale model on the Yin-Yang grid system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 1913–1926, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.873, 2011. a
Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L. V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670, 2003. a
Reynolds, R. W., Smith, T. M., Liu, C., Chelton, D. B., Casey, K. S., and Schlax, M. G.: Daily high‐resolution‐blended analyses for sea surface temperature, J. Climate, 20, 31004, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/abf295, 2007. a
Roach, L. A., Dörr, J., Holmes, C. R., Massonnet, F., Blockley, E. W., Notz, D., Rackow, T., Raphael, M. N., O'Farrell, S. P., Bailey, D. A., and Bitz, C. M.: Antarctic Sea Ice Area in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086729, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086729, 2020. a
Santer, B. D., Po-Chedley, S., Mears, C., Fyfe, J. C., Gillett, N., Fu, Q., Painter, J. F., Solomon, S., Steiner, A. K., Wentz, F. J., Zelinka, M. D., and Zou, C.-Z.: Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations, J. Climate, 34, 6281–6301, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0768.1, 2021. a, b
Scinocca, J. F. and McFarlane, N. A.: The parametrization of drag induced by stratified flow over anisotropic orography, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 2353–2393, 2000. a
Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Using the radiative kernel technique to calculate climate feedbacks in NCAR's Community Atmospheric Model, J. Climate, 21, 2269–2282, 2008. a
Sigmond, M. and Scinocca, J. F.: The Influence of the Basic State on the Northern Hemisphere Circulation Response to Climate Change, J. Climate, 23, 1434–1446, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3167.1, 2010. a, b, c
Sigmond, M., Scinocca, J. F., Kharin, V. V., and Shepherd, T. G.: Enhanced seasonal forecast skill following stratospheric sudden warmings, Nat. Geosci., 6, 98–102, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1698, 2013. a
Sigmond, M., Fyfe, J. C., Saenko, O. A., and Swart, N. C.: Ongoing AMOC and related sea-level and temperature changes after achieving the Paris targets, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 672–677, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0786-0, 2020. a
Sigmond, M., Anstey, J., and Reader, M. C.: A4D standardized diagnostics software and technical reports, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8356908, 2023. a
Simpson, I. R., Hitchcock, P., Seager, R., Wu, Y., and Callaghan, P.: The Downward Influence of Uncertainty in the Northern Hemisphere Stratospheric Polar Vortex Response to Climate Change, J. Climate, 31, 6371–6391, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0041.1, 2018. a
Song, Q., Zhang, Z., Yu, H., Ginoux, P., and Shen, J.: Global dust optical depth climatology derived from CALIOP and MODIS aerosol retrievals on decadal timescales: regional and interannual variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13369–13395, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13369-2021, 2021. a
Song, Z., Liu, H., and Chen, X.: Eastern equatorial Pacific SST seasonal cycle in global climate models: From CMIP5 to CMIP6, Acta Oceanol. Sin., 39, 50–60, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-020-1623-z, 2020. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J., Kharin, S., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J., Gillett, N., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W., Majaess, F., Saenko, O., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., Salzen, K. V., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) – v5.0.3, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3251114, 2019a. 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, 2019b. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p
Swart, N. C., Cole, J., Kharin, S., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J., Gillett, N., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W., Majaess, F., Saenko, O., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., Salzen, K. v., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) – v5.1.6, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7786802, 2023. a
Swenson, S. C. and Lawrence, D. M.: A new fractional snow-covered area parameterization for the Community Land Model and its effect on the surface energy balance, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D21107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018178, 2012. a
Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 7183–7192, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719, 2001. a
Verseghy, D., McFarlane, N., and Lazare, M.: CLASS – A Canadian land surface scheme for GCMs, II. Vegetation model and coupled runs, Int. J. Climatol., 13, 347–370, 1993. a
Virgin, J. G., Fletcher, C. G., Cole, J. N. S., von Salzen, K., and Mitovski, T.: Cloud Feedbacks from CanESM2 to CanESM5.0 and their influence on climate sensitivity, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5355–5372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021, 2021. a, b
Vogel, A., Alessa, G., Scheele, R., Weber, L., Dubovik, O., North, P., and Fiedler, S.: Uncertainty in Aerosol Optical Depth From Modern Aerosol-Climate Models, Reanalyses, and Satellite Products, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035483, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035483, 2022a. a
Vogel, R., Albright, A. L., Vial, J., George, G., Stevens, B., and Bony, S.: Strong cloud–circulation coupling explains weak trade cumulus feedback, Nature, 612, 696–700, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05364-y, 2022b. a
von Salzen, K., Scinocca, J. F., McFarlane, N. A., Li, J., Cole, J. N. S., Plummer, D., Verseghy, D., Reader, M. C., Ma, X., Lazare, M., and Solheim, L.: The Canadian Fourth Generation Atmospheric Global Climate Model (CanAM4). Part I: Representation of Physical Processes, Atmos. Ocean, 51, 104–125, https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2012.755610, 2013. a, b, c
Voss, K. K. and Evan, A. T.: Dust aerosol optical depth, PANGAEA [data set], https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.909140, 2019. a
Wang, W. and McPhaden, M. J.: The Surface-Layer Heat Balance in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean. Part I: Mean Seasonal Cycle, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 29, 1812–1831, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1999)029<1812:TSLHBI>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Williamson, D., Blaker, A. T., Hampton, C., and Salter, J.: Identifying and removing structural biases in climate models with history matching, Clim. Dynam., 45, 1299–1324, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2378-z, 2015. a
Williamson, D. B., Blaker, A. T., and Sinha, B.: Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1789–1816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017, 2017. a
Winker, D. M., Vaughan, M. A., Omar, A., Hu, Y., Powell, K. A., Liu, Z., Hunt, W. H., and Young, S. A.: Overview of the CALIPSO Mission and CALIOP Data Processing Algorithms, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 2310–2323, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1, 2009. a, b
Young, A. H., Knapp, K. R., Inamdar, A., Hankins, W., and Rossow, W. B.: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project H-Series climate data record product, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 583–593, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-583-2018, 2018. 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
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 131, 845–861, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131<0845:MGSIWA>2.0.CO;2, 2003. a
Zhao, A., Ryder, C. L., and Wilcox, L. J.: How well do the CMIP6 models simulate dust aerosols?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2095–2119, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2095-2022, 2022. a, b
Short summary
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth System model (CanESM) in a systematic manner. Results of this “Analysis for Development” (A4D) activity includes a new CanESM version, CanESM5.1, which features substantial improvements regarding the simulation of dust and stratospheric temperatures, a second CanESM5.1 variant with reduced climate sensitivity, and insights into potential avenues to reduce various other model biases.
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth...
Special issue