Articles | Volume 16, issue 24
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7253-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7253-2023
© 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
| 
18 Dec 2023
Model evaluation paper |
| 18 Dec 2023
| 18 Dec 2023
Observation-based sowing dates and cultivars significantly affect yield and irrigation for some crops in the Community Land Model (CLM5)
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University. 14 College Farm Rd., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8551, USA
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
William J. Sacks
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Danica L. Lombardozzi
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University. 14 College Farm Rd., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8551, USA
Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University. 14 College Farm Rd., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8551, USA
Related authors
Carolina Natel, David Martín Belda, Peter Anthoni, Neele Haß, Sam Rabin, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4317–4333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed fast machine learning models to predict forest regrowth and carbon dynamics under climate change. These models mimic the outputs of a complex vegetation model but run 95 % faster, enabling global analyses and supporting climate solutions in large modeling frameworks such as LandSyMM.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study aimed to improve the representation of wheat and rice in a land model for the Indian region. The modified model performed significantly better than the default model in simulating crop phenology, yield, and carbon, water, and energy fluxes compared to observations. The study highlights the need for global land models to use region-specific crop parameters for accurately simulating vegetation processes and land surface processes.
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 Earth system models in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Most models reproduce global totals, spatial patterns, seasonality, and regional historical changes well but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire response to climate variability. CMIP6 simulations address three critical issues of phase-5 models.
Sabin I. Taranu, David M. Lawrence, Yoshihide Wada, Ting Tang, Erik Kluzek, Sam Rabin, Yi Yao, Steven J. De Hertog, Inne Vanderkelen, and Wim Thiery
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7365–7399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved a climate model by adding the representation of water use sectors such as domestic, industry, and agriculture. This new feature helps us understand how water is used and supplied in various areas. We tested our model from 1971 to 2010 and found that it accurately identifies areas with water scarcity. By modelling the competition between sectors when water availability is limited, the model helps estimate the intensity and extent of individual sectors' water shortages.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Jianyong Ma, Stefan Olin, Peter Anthoni, Sam S. Rabin, Anita D. Bayer, Sylvia S. Nyawira, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 815–839, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-815-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-815-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The implementation of the biological N fixation process in LPJ-GUESS in this study provides an opportunity to quantify N fixation rates between legumes and to better estimate grain legume production on a global scale. It also helps to predict and detect the potential contribution of N-fixing plants as
green manureto reducing or removing the use of N fertilizer in global agricultural systems, considering different climate conditions, management practices, and land-use change scenarios.
Camelia-Eliza Telteu, Hannes Müller Schmied, Wim Thiery, Guoyong Leng, Peter Burek, Xingcai Liu, Julien Eric Stanislas Boulange, Lauren Seaby Andersen, Manolis Grillakis, Simon Newland Gosling, Yusuke Satoh, Oldrich Rakovec, Tobias Stacke, Jinfeng Chang, Niko Wanders, Harsh Lovekumar Shah, Tim Trautmann, Ganquan Mao, Naota Hanasaki, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Yadu Pokhrel, Luis Samaniego, Yoshihide Wada, Vimal Mishra, Junguo Liu, Petra Döll, Fang Zhao, Anne Gädeke, Sam S. Rabin, and Florian Herz
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3843–3878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in 16 global water models that provide simulations for the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. We develop a standard writing style for the model equations. We conclude that even though hydrologic processes are often based on similar equations, in the end these equations have been adjusted, or the models have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables.
Carolina Natel, David Martín Belda, Peter Anthoni, Neele Haß, Sam Rabin, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4317–4333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed fast machine learning models to predict forest regrowth and carbon dynamics under climate change. These models mimic the outputs of a complex vegetation model but run 95 % faster, enabling global analyses and supporting climate solutions in large modeling frameworks such as LandSyMM.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Huilin Huang, Yun Qian, Gautam Bisht, Jiali Wang, Tirthankar Chakraborty, Dalei Hao, Jianfeng Li, Travis Thurber, Balwinder Singh, Zhao Yang, Ye Liu, Pengfei Xue, William J. Sacks, Ethan Coon, and Robert Hetland
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1427–1443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We integrate the E3SM Land Model (ELM) with the WRF model through the Lightweight Infrastructure for Land Atmosphere Coupling (LILAC) Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF). This framework includes a top-level driver, LILAC, for variable communication between WRF and ELM and ESMF caps for ELM initialization, execution, and finalization. The LILAC–ESMF framework maintains the integrity of the ELM's source code structure and facilitates the transfer of future ELM model developments to WRF-ELM.
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study aimed to improve the representation of wheat and rice in a land model for the Indian region. The modified model performed significantly better than the default model in simulating crop phenology, yield, and carbon, water, and energy fluxes compared to observations. The study highlights the need for global land models to use region-specific crop parameters for accurately simulating vegetation processes and land surface processes.
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 Earth system models in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Most models reproduce global totals, spatial patterns, seasonality, and regional historical changes well but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire response to climate variability. CMIP6 simulations address three critical issues of phase-5 models.
Florian Jehn, Łukasz Gajewski, Johanna Hedlund, Constantin Arnscheidt, Lili Xia, Nico Wunderling, and David Denkenberger
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.31223/X5MQ4R, https://doi.org/10.31223/X5MQ4R, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The global food trade system can handle small disturbances, but large disasters could cause major disruptions. We looked at how nuclear war or severe infrastructure loss would affect global trade in key crops. Both would be catastrophic, but a nuclear war would cause more severe disruptions, with many countries losing most of their food imports. Both scenarios highlight the need for better preparation to protect global food security.
Sabin I. Taranu, David M. Lawrence, Yoshihide Wada, Ting Tang, Erik Kluzek, Sam Rabin, Yi Yao, Steven J. De Hertog, Inne Vanderkelen, and Wim Thiery
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7365–7399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved a climate model by adding the representation of water use sectors such as domestic, industry, and agriculture. This new feature helps us understand how water is used and supplied in various areas. We tested our model from 1971 to 2010 and found that it accurately identifies areas with water scarcity. By modelling the competition between sectors when water availability is limited, the model helps estimate the intensity and extent of individual sectors' water shortages.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Danica L. Lombardozzi, William R. Wieder, Negin Sobhani, Gordon B. Bonan, David Durden, Dawn Lenz, Michael SanClements, Samantha Weintraub-Leff, Edward Ayres, Christopher R. Florian, Kyla Dahlin, Sanjiv Kumar, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claire M. Zarakas, Charles Vardeman, and Valerio Pascucci
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5979–6000, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5979-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5979-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel cyberinfrastructure system that uses National Ecological Observatory Network measurements to run Community Terrestrial System Model point simulations in a containerized system. The simple interface and tutorials expand access to data and models used in Earth system research by removing technical barriers and facilitating research, educational opportunities, and community engagement. The NCAR–NEON system enables convergence of climate and ecological sciences.
Seyed Vahid Mousavi, Khalil Karami, Simone Tilmes, Helene Muri, Lili Xia, and Abolfazl Rezaei
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10677–10695, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding atmospheric dust changes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region under future climate scenarios is essential. By injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) geoengineering reflects some of the incoming sunlight back to space. This study shows that the MENA region would experience lower dust concentration under both SAI and RCP8.5 scenarios compared to the current climate (CTL) by the end of the century.
Alan Robock, Lili Xia, Cheryl S. Harrison, Joshua Coupe, Owen B. Toon, and Charles G. Bardeen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6691–6701, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A nuclear war could produce a nuclear winter, with catastrophic consequences for global food supplies. Nuclear winter theory helped to end the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, but more than 10 000 nuclear weapons still exist. This means they can be used, by unstable leaders, accidently from technical malfunctions or human error, or by terrorists. Therefore, it is urgent for scientists to study these issues, broadly communicate their results, and work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Wenfu Tang, Simone Tilmes, David M. Lawrence, Fang Li, Cenlin He, Louisa K. Emmons, Rebecca R. Buchholz, and Lili Xia
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5467–5486, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5467-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5467-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Globally, total wildfire burned area is projected to increase over the 21st century under scenarios without geoengineering and decrease under the two geoengineering scenarios. Geoengineering reduces fire by decreasing surface temperature and wind speed and increasing relative humidity and soil water. However, geoengineering also yields reductions in precipitation, which offset some of the fire reduction.
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Stephen G. Yeager, Nan Rosenbloom, Anne A. Glanville, Xian Wu, Isla Simpson, Hui Li, Maria J. Molina, Kristen Krumhardt, Samuel Mogen, Keith Lindsay, Danica Lombardozzi, Will Wieder, Who M. Kim, Jadwiga H. Richter, Matthew Long, Gokhan Danabasoglu, David Bailey, Marika Holland, Nicole Lovenduski, Warren G. Strand, and Teagan King
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system changes over a range of time and space scales, and some of these changes are predictable in advance. Short-term weather forecasts are most familiar, but recent work has shown that it is possible to generate useful predictions several seasons or even a decade in advance. This study focuses on predictions over intermediate timescales (up to 24 months in advance) and shows that there is promising potential to forecast a variety of changes in the natural environment.
Shakirudeen Lawal, Stephen Sitch, Danica Lombardozzi, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Hao-Wei Wey, Pierre Friedlingstein, Hanqin Tian, and Bruce Hewitson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2045–2071, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2045-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2045-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To investigate the impacts of drought on vegetation, which few studies have done due to various limitations, we used the leaf area index as proxy and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) to simulate drought impacts because the models use observationally derived climate. We found that the semi-desert biome responds strongly to drought in the summer season, while the tropical forest biome shows a weak response. This study could help target areas to improve drought monitoring and simulation.
Ruqi Yang, Jun Wang, Ning Zeng, Stephen Sitch, Wenhan Tang, Matthew Joseph McGrath, Qixiang Cai, Di Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Hanqin Tian, Atul K. Jain, and Pengfei Han
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 833–849, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-833-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-833-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We comprehensively investigate historical GPP trends based on five kinds of GPP datasets and analyze the causes for any discrepancies among them. Results show contrasting behaviors between modeled and satellite-based GPP trends, and their inconsistencies are likely caused by the contrasting performance between satellite-derived and modeled leaf area index (LAI). Thus, the uncertainty in satellite-based GPP induced by LAI undermines its role in assessing the performance of DGVM simulations.
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.
Jianyong Ma, Stefan Olin, Peter Anthoni, Sam S. Rabin, Anita D. Bayer, Sylvia S. Nyawira, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 815–839, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-815-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-815-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The implementation of the biological N fixation process in LPJ-GUESS in this study provides an opportunity to quantify N fixation rates between legumes and to better estimate grain legume production on a global scale. It also helps to predict and detect the potential contribution of N-fixing plants as
green manureto reducing or removing the use of N fertilizer in global agricultural systems, considering different climate conditions, management practices, and land-use change scenarios.
Keith B. Rodgers, Sun-Seon Lee, Nan Rosenbloom, Axel Timmermann, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Clara Deser, Jim Edwards, Ji-Eun Kim, Isla R. Simpson, Karl Stein, Malte F. Stuecker, Ryohei Yamaguchi, Tamás Bódai, Eui-Seok Chung, Lei Huang, Who M. Kim, Jean-François Lamarque, Danica L. Lombardozzi, William R. Wieder, and Stephen G. Yeager
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1393–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1393-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1393-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A large ensemble of simulations with 100 members has been conducted with the state-of-the-art CESM2 Earth system model, using historical and SSP3-7.0 forcing. Our main finding is that there are significant changes in the variance of the Earth system in response to anthropogenic forcing, with these changes spanning a broad range of variables important to impacts for human populations and ecosystems.
Wouter Dorigo, Irene Himmelbauer, Daniel Aberer, Lukas Schremmer, Ivana Petrakovic, Luca Zappa, Wolfgang Preimesberger, Angelika Xaver, Frank Annor, Jonas Ardö, Dennis Baldocchi, Marco Bitelli, Günter Blöschl, Heye Bogena, Luca Brocca, Jean-Christophe Calvet, J. Julio Camarero, Giorgio Capello, Minha Choi, Michael C. Cosh, Nick van de Giesen, Istvan Hajdu, Jaakko Ikonen, Karsten H. Jensen, Kasturi Devi Kanniah, Ileen de Kat, Gottfried Kirchengast, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Jenni Kyrouac, Kristine Larson, Suxia Liu, Alexander Loew, Mahta Moghaddam, José Martínez Fernández, Cristian Mattar Bader, Renato Morbidelli, Jan P. Musial, Elise Osenga, Michael A. Palecki, Thierry Pellarin, George P. Petropoulos, Isabella Pfeil, Jarrett Powers, Alan Robock, Christoph Rüdiger, Udo Rummel, Michael Strobel, Zhongbo Su, Ryan Sullivan, Torbern Tagesson, Andrej Varlagin, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Jeffrey Walker, Jun Wen, Fred Wenger, Jean Pierre Wigneron, Mel Woods, Kun Yang, Yijian Zeng, Xiang Zhang, Marek Zreda, Stephan Dietrich, Alexander Gruber, Peter van Oevelen, Wolfgang Wagner, Klaus Scipal, Matthias Drusch, and Roberto Sabia
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5749–5804, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) is a community-based open-access data portal for soil water measurements taken at the ground and is accessible at https://ismn.earth. Over 1000 scientific publications and thousands of users have made use of the ISMN. The scope of this paper is to inform readers about the data and functionality of the ISMN and to provide a review of the scientific progress facilitated through the ISMN with the scope to shape future research and operations.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
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.
Camelia-Eliza Telteu, Hannes Müller Schmied, Wim Thiery, Guoyong Leng, Peter Burek, Xingcai Liu, Julien Eric Stanislas Boulange, Lauren Seaby Andersen, Manolis Grillakis, Simon Newland Gosling, Yusuke Satoh, Oldrich Rakovec, Tobias Stacke, Jinfeng Chang, Niko Wanders, Harsh Lovekumar Shah, Tim Trautmann, Ganquan Mao, Naota Hanasaki, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Yadu Pokhrel, Luis Samaniego, Yoshihide Wada, Vimal Mishra, Junguo Liu, Petra Döll, Fang Zhao, Anne Gädeke, Sam S. Rabin, and Florian Herz
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3843–3878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in 16 global water models that provide simulations for the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. We develop a standard writing style for the model equations. We conclude that even though hydrologic processes are often based on similar equations, in the end these equations have been adjusted, or the models have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables.
Leah Birch, Christopher R. Schwalm, Sue Natali, Danica Lombardozzi, Gretchen Keppel-Aleks, Jennifer Watts, Xin Lin, Donatella Zona, Walter Oechel, Torsten Sachs, Thomas Andrew Black, and Brendan M. Rogers
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3361–3382, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3361-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3361-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The high-latitude landscape or Arctic–boreal zone has been warming rapidly, impacting the carbon balance both regionally and globally. Given the possible global effects of climate change, it is important to have accurate climate model simulations. We assess the simulation of the Arctic–boreal carbon cycle in the Community Land Model (CLM 5.0). We find biases in both the timing and magnitude photosynthesis. We then use observational data to improve the simulation of the carbon cycle.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian winters alongside a drier Mediterranean and wetting to the north. These effects occur due to the strengthening of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex, which shifts the North Atlantic Oscillation to a more positive phase. We find the effects in our simulations to be much more significant than the wintertime effects of large tropical volcanic eruptions which inject much less sulfate aerosol.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Margot Clyne, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael J. Mills, Myriam Khodri, William Ball, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Nicolas Lebas, Graham Mann, Lauren Marshall, Ulrike Niemeier, Virginie Poulain, Alan Robock, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Andrea Stenke, Timofei Sukhodolov, Claudia Timmreck, Matthew Toohey, Fiona Tummon, Davide Zanchettin, Yunqian Zhu, and Owen B. Toon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3317–3343, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study finds how and why five state-of-the-art global climate models with interactive stratospheric aerosols differ when simulating the aftermath of large volcanic injections as part of the Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP). We identify and explain the consequences of significant disparities in the underlying physics and chemistry currently in some of the models, which are problems likely not unique to the models participating in this study.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Two different methods of simulating a geoengineering scenario are compared using data from two different Earth system models. One method is very idealised while the other includes details of a plausible mechanism. The results from both models agree that the idealised approach does not capture an impact found when detailed modelling is included, namely that geoengineering induces a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which leads to warmer, wetter winters in northern Europe.
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.
Cited articles
Bahinipati, C. S., Kumar, V., and Viswanathan, P. K.: An evidence-based systematic review on farmers’ adaptation strategies in India, Food Secur., 13, 399–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01139-3, 2021. a
Blanchard, J. L., Watson, R. A., Fulton, E. A., Cottrell, R. S., Nash, K. L., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Büchner, M., Carozza, D. A., Cheung, W. W. L., Elliott, J., Davidson, L. N. K., Dulvy, N. K., Dunne, J. P., Eddy, T. D., Galbraith, E., Lotze, H. K., Maury, O., Müller, C., Tittensor, D. P., and Jennings, S.: Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 1240–1249, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0258-8, 2017. a
CTSM Development Team: samsrabin/CTSM: v0 (ctsm5.1.dev092), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7724294, 2023a. a
CTSM Development Team: samsrabin/CTSM: v0.1.0 (runs-20230227), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7724212, 2023b. a
CTSM Development Team: samsrabin/CTSM: v0.1.1 (cropcal-runs-20230128-02), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7724225, 2023c. a
Computational and Information Systems Laboratory: Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA System (University Community Computing), Boulder, CO, National Center for Atmospheric Research, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX, 2019. a
Dirmeyer, P. A.: A History and Review of the Global Soil Wetness Project (GSWP), J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 729–749, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-10-05010.1, 2011. a
Dobor, L., Barcza, Z., Hlásny, T., Árendás, T., Spitkó, T., and Fodor, N.: Crop planting date matters: Estimation methods and effect on future yields, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 223, 103–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.023, 2016. a
FAO: FAOSTAT statistical database: Production, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (last access: 15 June 2022), 2022a. a
Frolking, S., Yeluripati, J. B., and Douglas, E.: New district-level maps of rice cropping in India: A foundation for scientific input into policy assessment, Field Crop. Res., 98, 164–177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.01.004, 2006. a
Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Masuda, K., Motoya, K., Shirakawa, N., Shen, Y., and Tanaka, K.: An integrated model for the assessment of global water resources – Part 2: Applications and assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1027–1037, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1027-2008, 2008. a, b
Hasegawa, T., Wakatsuki, H., Ju, H., Vyas, S., Nelson, G. C., Farrell, A., Deryng, D., Meza, F., and Makowski, D.: A global dataset for the projected impacts of climate change on four major crops, Sci. Data, 9, 58, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01150-7, 2022. a
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jacob, D., Taylor, M., Bindi, M., Brown, S., Camilloni, I., Diedhiou, A., Djalante, R., Ebi, K., Engelbrecht, F., Guiot, J., Hijioka, Y., Mehrotra, S., Payne, A., Seneviratne, S., Thomas, A., Warren, R., and Zhou, G.: Impacts of 1.5∘C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems, in: Global Warming of 1.5∘C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., and Waterfield, T., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, iPCC SR 1.5, 175–312, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005, 2022. a
Iizumi, T., Masaki, Y., Takimoto, T., and Masutomi, Y.: Aligning the harvesting year in global gridded crop model simulations with that in census reports is pivotal to national-level model performance evaluations for rice, Eur. J. Agron., 130, 126367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126367, 2021. a
Jans, Y., von Bloh, W., Schaphoff, S., and Müller, C.: Global cotton production under climate change – Implications for yield and water consumption, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2027–2044, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021, 2021. a, b, c
Jägermeyr, J. and Frieler, K.: Spatial variations in crop growing seasons pivotal to reproduce global fluctuations in maize and wheat yields, Sci. Adv., 4, eaat4517, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4517, 2018. a, b
Jägermeyr, J., Robock, A., Elliott, J., Müller, C., Xia, L., Khabarov, N., Folberth, C., Schmid, E., Liu, W., Zabel, F., Rabin, S. S., Puma, M. J., Heslin, A., Franke, J., Foster, I., Asseng, S., Bardeen, C. G., Toon, O. B., and Rosenzweig, C.: A regional nuclear conflict would compromise global food security, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 7071–7081, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117, 2020. a
Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Minoli, S., Ray, D., and Siebert, S.: GGCMI Phase 3 crop calendar, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5062513, 2021a. a, b
Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Ruane, A. C., Elliott, J., Balkovic, J., Castillo, O., Faye, B., Foster, I., Folberth, C., Franke, J. A., Fuchs, K., Guarin, J. R., Heinke, J., Hoogenboom, G., Iizumi, T., Jain, A. K., Kelly, D., Khabarov, N., Lange, S., Lin, T.-S., Liu, W., Mialyk, O., Minoli, S., Moyer, E. J., Okada, M., Phillips, M., Porter, C., Rabin, S. S., Scheer, C., Schneider, J. M., Schyns, J. F., Skalsky, R., Smerald, A., Stella, T., Stephens, H., Webber, H., Zabel, F., and Rosenzweig, C.: Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models, Nat. Food, 2, 873–885, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00400-y, 2021b. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Kerr, R. B., Hasegawa, T., Lasco, R., Bhatt, I., Deryng, D., Farrell, A., Gurney-Smith, H., Ju, H., Lluch-Cota, S., Meza, F., Nelson, G., Neufeldt, H., and Thornton, P.: Food, Fibre, and Other Ecosystem Products, in: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Müller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, aR6 WG2, 713–906, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.007, 2022. a, b, c
Kucharik, C. J.: Evaluation of a Process-Based Agro-Ecosystem Model (Agro-IBIS) across the U.S. Corn Belt: Simulations of the Interannual Variability in Maize Yield, Earth Interact., 7, 1–33, https://doi.org/10.1175/1087-3562(2003)007<0001:eoapam>2.0.co;2, 2003. a
Kucharik, C. J. and Brye, K. R.: Integrated BIosphere Simulator (IBIS) Yield and Nitrate Loss Predictions for Wisconsin Maize Receiving Varied Amounts of Nitrogen Fertilizer, J. Environ. Qual., 32, 247–268, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2003.2470, 2003. a, b
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C., Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P. J., Li, F., Li, H., Lombardozzi, D., Riley, W. J., Sacks, W. J., Shi, M., Vertenstein, M., Wieder, W. R., Xu, C., Ali, A. A., Badger, A. M., Bisht, G., Broeke, M., Brunke, M. A., Burns, S. P., Buzan, J., Clark, M., Craig, A., Dahlin, K., Drewniak, B., Fisher, J. B., Flanner, M., Fox, A. M., Gentine, P., Hoffman, F., Aleks, G. K., Knox, R., Kumar, S., Lenaerts, J., Leung, L. R., Lipscomb, W. H., Lu, Y., Pandey, A., Pelletier, J. D., Perket, J., Randerson, J. T., Ricciuto, D. M., Sanderson, B. M., Slater, A., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J., Thomas, R. Q., Martin, M. V., and Zeng, X.: The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4245–4287, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001583, 2019. a, b
Legendre, B. L.: Varietal differences in the chemical composition of sugarcane, in: Chemistry and Processing of Sugarbeet and Sugarcane, edited by: Clarke, M. A. and Godshall, M. A., 176–185, ISBN 9781483290041, https://www.elsevier.com/books/chemistry-and-processing-of-sugarbeet-and-sugarcane/clarke/978-0-444-43020-5 (last access: 4 December 2023), 1988. a, b
Lehner, B., Verdin, K., and Jarvis, A.: HydroSHEDS technical documentation, https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrosheds (last access: 4 December 2023), 2022. a
Levis, S., Bonan, G. B., Kluzek, E., Thornton, P. E., Jones, A., Sacks, W. J., and Kucharik, C. J.: Interactive Crop Management in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1): Seasonal Influences on Land-Atmosphere Fluxes, J. Climate, 25, 4839–4859, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-11-00446.1, 2012. a, b
Li, H.-Y., Leung, L. R., Getirana, A., Huang, M., Wu, H., Xu, Y., Guo, J., and Voisin, N.: Evaluating Global Streamflow Simulations by a Physically Based Routing Model Coupled with the Community Land Model, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 948–971, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-14-0079.1, 2015. a
Lombardozzi, D. L., Lu, Y., Lawrence, P. J., Lawrence, D. M., Swenson, S., Oleson, K. W., Wieder, W. R., and Ainsworth, E. A.: Simulating Agriculture in the Community Land Model Version 5, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 125, e2019JG005529, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jg005529, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Lu, Y., Williams, I. N., Bagley, J. E., Torn, M. S., and Kueppers, L. M.: Representing winter wheat in the Community Land Model (version 4.5), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1873–1888, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1873-2017, 2017. a
Minoli, S., Jägermeyr, J., Asseng, S., Urfels, A., and Müller, C.: Global crop yields can be lifted by timely adaptation of growing periods to climate change, Nat. Commun., 13, 7079, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34411-5, 2022. a
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gb002947, 2008. a
Müller, C., Elliott, J., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Deryng, D., Folberth, C., Pugh, T. A. M., and Schmid, E.: Implications of climate mitigation for future agricultural production, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 125004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125004, 2015. a
Müller, C., Elliott, J., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Arneth, A., Balkovic, J., Ciais, P., Deryng, D., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Hoek, S., Iizumi, T., Izaurralde, R. C., Jones, C., Khabarov, N., Lawrence, P., Liu, W., Olin, S., Pugh, T. A. M., Ray, D. K., Reddy, A., Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A. C., Sakurai, G., Schmid, E., Skalsky, R., Song, C. X., Wang, X., de Wit, A., and Yang, H.: Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403–1422, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Olin, S., Schurgers, G., Lindeskog, M., Wårlind, D., Smith, B., Bodin, P., Holmér, J., and Arneth, A.: Modelling the response of yields and tissue C : N to changes in atmospheric CO2 and N management in the main wheat regions of western Europe, Biogeosciences, 12, 2489–2515, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-2489-2015, 2015. a
Oort, P. A. J. v. and Zwart, S. J.: Impacts of climate change on rice production in Africa and causes of simulated yield changes, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 1029–1045, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13967, 2018. a
Rabin, S.: samsrabin/CTSM_cropcals_hist: v1.0.1 (v1.0.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7758123, 2023. a
Rabin, S. S., Sacks, W. J., Lombardozzi, D. L., Xia, L., and Robock, A.: Model inputs and outputs for: Observation-based sowing dates and cultivars significantly affect yield and irrigation for some crops in the Community Land Model (CLM5), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7754247, 2023. a
Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., Ruane, A. C., Boote, K. J., Thorburn, P., Antle, J. M., Nelson, G. C., Porter, C., Janssen, S., Asseng, S., Basso, B., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Baigorria, G., and Winter, J. M.: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 170, 166–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.011, 2013. a
Sacks, W. J., Cook, B. I., Buenning, N., Levis, S., and Helkowski, J. H.: Effects of global irrigation on the near-surface climate, Clim. Dynam., 33, 159–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z, 2009. a
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A., and Ramankutty, N.: Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 19, 607–620, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00551.x, 2010. a
Schulzweida, U.: CDO User Guide (2.1.0), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1435454, 2022. a
Shaffril, H. A. M., Krauss, S. E., and Samsuddin, S. F.: A systematic review on Asian's farmers' adaptation practices towards climate change, Sci. Total Environ., 644, 683–695, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349, 2018. a
Shrestha, R., Raut, N., Swe, L., and Tieng, T.: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Agriculture: Cases from Southeast Asia, Sustainable Agriculture Research, 7, 39, https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v7n3p39, 2018. a
Valade, A., Vuichard, N., Ciais, P., Ruget, F., Viovy, N., Gabrielle, B., Huth, N., and Martiné, J.: ORCHIDEE‐STICS, a process‐based model of sugarcane biomass production: calibration of model parameters governing phenology, GCB Bioenergy, 6, 606–620, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12074, 2014. a
Wada, Y., Wisser, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Gerten, D., Haddeland, I., Hanasaki, N., Masaki, Y., Portmann, F. T., Stacke, T., Tessler, Z., and Schewe, J.: Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 4626–4632, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50686, 2013. a
Waha, K., Dietrich, J. P., Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., Thornton, P. K., Bondeau, A., and Herrero, M.: Multiple cropping systems of the world and the potential for increasing cropping intensity, Global Environ. Change, 64, 102131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102131, 2020. a, b
Wang, X., Folberth, C., Skalsky, R., Wang, S., Chen, B., Liu, Y., Chen, J., and Balkovic, J.: Crop calendar optimization for climate change adaptation in rice-based multiple cropping systems of India and Bangladesh, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 315, 108830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108830, 2022. a
Wisser, D., Frolking, S., Douglas, E. M., Fekete, B. M., Vörösmarty, C. J., and Schumann, A. H.: Global irrigation water demand: Variability and uncertainties arising from agricultural and climate data sets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L24408, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl035296, 2008. a
Yao, Y., Vanderkelen, I., Lombardozzi, D., Swenson, S., Lawrence, D., Jägermeyr, J., Grant, L., and Thiery, W.: Implementation and Evaluation of Irrigation Techniques in the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2022MS003074, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ms003074, 2022. a, b, c
Yin, D., Yan, J., Li, F., and Song, T.: Evaluation of global gridded crop models in simulating sugarcane yield in China, Atmos. Ocean. Sc. Lett., 16, 100329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aosl.2023.100329, 2023. a
Zabel, F., Müller, C., Elliott, J., Minoli, S., Jägermeyr, J., Schneider, J. M., Franke, J. A., Moyer, E., Dury, M., François, L., Folberth, C., Liu, W., Pugh, T. A. M., Olin, S., Rabin, S. S., Mauser, W., Hank, T., Ruane, A. C., and Asseng, S.: Large potential for crop production adaptation depends on available future varieties, Glob. Change Biol., 27, 3870–3882, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15649, 2021. a, b
Short summary
Climate models can help us simulate how the agricultural system will be affected by and respond to environmental change, but to be trustworthy they must realistically reproduce historical patterns. When farmers plant their crops and what varieties they choose will be important aspects of future adaptation. Here, we improve the crop component of a global model to better simulate observed growing seasons and examine the impacts on simulated crop yields and irrigation demand.
Climate models can help us simulate how the agricultural system will be affected by and respond...
