Articles | Volume 17, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-17-1059-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
08 Feb 2024
Model evaluation paper |
| 08 Feb 2024
| 08 Feb 2024
Constraining the carbon cycle in JULES-ES-1.0
Douglas McNeall
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Environment Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK
Eddy Robertson
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Andy Wiltshire
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Department of Geography, Faculty of Environment Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK
Related authors
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Amali A. Amali, Clemens Schwingshackl, Akihiko Ito, Alina Barbu, Christine Delire, Daniele Peano, David M. Lawrence, David Wårlind, Eddy Robertson, Edouard L. Davin, Elena Shevliakova, Ian N. Harman, Nicolas Vuichard, Paul A. Miller, Peter J. Lawrence, Tilo Ziehn, Tomohiro Hajima, Victor Brovkin, Yanwu Zhang, Vivek K. Arora, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 803–840, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study explored the impact of anthropogenic land-use change (LUC) on climate dynamics, focusing on biogeophysical (BGP) and biogeochemical (BGC) effects using data from the Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). We found that LUC-induced carbon emissions contribute to a BGC warming of 0.21 °C, with BGC effects dominating globally over BGP effects, which show regional variability. Our findings highlight discrepancies in model simulations and emphasize the need for improved representations of LUC processes.
Martin Richard Willett, Melissa Brooks, Andrew Bushell, Paul Earnshaw, Samantha Smith, Lorenzo Tomassini, Martin Best, Ian Boutle, Jennifer Brooke, John M. Edwards, Kalli Furtado, Catherine Hardacre, Andrew J. Hartley, Alan Hewitt, Ben Johnson, Adrian Lock, Andy Malcolm, Jane Mulcahy, Eike Müller, Heather Rumbold, Gabriel G. Rooney, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Annelize van Niekerk, Andy Wiltshire, and Michael Whitall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Global Atmosphere (GA) configurations of the Unified Model (UM) and Global Land (GL) configurations of JULES are developed for use in any global atmospheric modelling application. We describe a recent iteration of these configurations, GA8GL9, which includes improvements to the represenation of convection and other physical processes. GA8GL9 is used for operational weather prediction in the UK and forms the basis for the next GA and GL configuration.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Hanna Lee, Stefano Materia, Julia E. M .S. Nabel, Taejin Park, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth System Models are the principal tools for scientists to study past, present, and future climate changes. This work investigates the ability of a set of them to represent the observed changes in vegetation, which are vital to estimating the impact of future climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study highlights the main limitations in correctly representing vegetation variability. These tools still need further development to improve our understanding of future changes.
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.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Stephanie Woodward, Alistair A. Sellar, Yongming Tang, Marc Stringer, Andrew Yool, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the dust scheme in the UKESM1 Earth system model and show generally good agreement with observations. Comparing with the closely related HadGEM3-GC3.1 model, we show that dust differences are not only due to inter-model differences but also to the dust size distribution. Under climate change, HadGEM3-GC3.1 dust hardly changes, but UKESM1 dust decreases because that model includes the vegetation response which, in our models, has a bigger impact on dust than climate change itself.
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.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 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.
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.
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.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Stefano Materia, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Emilie Joetzjer, Hanna Lee, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Taejin Park, Philippe Peylin, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 2405–2428, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global climate models are the scientist’s tools used for studying past, present, and future climate conditions. This work examines the ability of a group of our tools in reproducing and capturing the right timing and length of the season when plants show their green leaves. This season, indeed, is fundamental for CO2 exchanges between land, atmosphere, and climate. This work shows that discrepancies compared to observations remain, demanding further polishing of these tools.
Fiona M. O'Connor, N. Luke Abraham, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Paul T. Griffiths, Catherine Hardacre, Ben T. Johnson, Ron Kahana, James Keeble, Byeonghyeon Kim, Olaf Morgenstern, Jane P. Mulcahy, Mark Richardson, Eddy Robertson, Jeongbyn Seo, Sungbo Shim, João C. Teixeira, Steven T. Turnock, Jonny Williams, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Stephanie Woodward, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1211–1243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper calculates how changes in emissions and/or concentrations of different atmospheric constituents since the pre-industrial era have altered the Earth's energy budget at the present day using a metric called effective radiative forcing. The impact of land use change is also assessed. We find that individual contributions do not add linearly, and different Earth system interactions can affect the magnitude of the calculated effective radiative forcing.
Camilla Mathison, Andrew J. Challinor, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, Sébastien Garrigues, Sophie Moulin, Karina Williams, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
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.
Felix Leung, Karina Williams, Stephen Sitch, Amos P. K. Tai, Andy Wiltshire, Jemma Gornall, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Timothy Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6201–6213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-level ozone (O3) is detrimental to plant productivity and crop yield. Currently, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) includes a representation of crops (JULES-crop). The parameters for O3 damage in soybean in JULES-crop were calibrated against photosynthesis measurements from the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (SoyFACE). The result shows good performance for yield, and it helps contribute to understanding of the impacts of climate and air pollution on food security.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
Cited articles
Al-Taweel, Y.: Diagnostics and Simulation-Based Methods for Validating Gaussian Process Emulators, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18140.23683, 2018. a
Andrianakis, I., Vernon, I. R., McCreesh, N., McKinley, T. J., Oakley, J. E., Nsubuga, R. N., Goldstein, M., and White, R. G.: Bayesian history matching of complex infectious disease models using emulation: a tutorial and a case study on HIV in Uganda, PLoS Comput. Biol., 11, e1003968, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003968, 2015. a
Baker, E., Harper, A. B., Williamson, D., and Challenor, P.: Emulation of high-resolution land surface models using sparse Gaussian processes with application to JULES, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1913–1929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1913-2022, 2022. a
Carnell, R.: lhs: Latin Hypercube Samples, r package version 1.1.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lhs (last access: 8 November 2021), 2021. a
Carslaw, K., Lee, L., Reddington, C., Pringle, K., Rap, A., Forster, P., Mann, G., Spracklen, D., Woodhouse, M., Regayre, L., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 67–71, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674, 2013. a, b
Couvreux, F., Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Roehrig, R., Volodina, V., Villefranque, N., Rio, C., Audouin, O., Salter, J., Bazile, E., Brient, F., Favot, F., Honnert, R., Lefebvre, M.-P., Madeleine, J.-B., Rodier, Q., and Xu, W.: Process-Based Climate Model Development Harnessing Machine Learning: I. A Calibration Tool for Parameterization Improvement, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002 217, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002217, 2021. a
Cox, P. M.: Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model, Tech. rep., Technical Note 24, Hadley Centre, United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UK, https://library.metoffice.gov.uk/Portal/Default/en-GB/RecordView/Index/252319 (last access: 1 February 2024), 2001. a
Craig, P., Goldstein, M., Seheult, A., and Smith, J.: Bayes linear strategies for history matching of hydrocarbon reservoirs, in: Bayesian Statistics 5, edited by: Bernardo, J., Berger, J., Dawid, A., and Smith, A., Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 69–95, ISBN 9780198523567, 1996. a
Craig, P., Goldstein, M., Seheult, A., and Smith, J.: Pressure matching for hydrocarbon reservoirs: a case study in the use of Bayes linear strategies for large computer experiments, in: Case studies in Bayesian statistics, edited by: Gatsonis, C., Hodges, J., Kass, R., McCulloch, R., Rossi, P., and Singpurwalla, N., Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, vol. 3, 36–93, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2290-3_2, 1997. a
Edwards, T. L., Brandon, M. A., Durand, G., Edwards, N. R., Golledge, N. R., Holden, P. B., Nias, I. J., Payne, A. J., Ritz, C., and Wernecke, A.: Revisiting Antarctic ice loss due to marine ice-cliff instability, Nature, 566, 58–64, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0901-4, 2019. a
Fisher, R. A. and Koven, C. D.: Perspectives on the Future of Land Surface Models and the Challenges of Representing Complex Terrestrial Systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2018MS001453, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001453, 2020. a
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
Hamill, T. M.: Interpretation of Rank Histograms for Verifying Ensemble Forecasts, Mon. Weather Rev., 129, 550–560, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0550:iorhfv>2.0.co;2, 2001. a
Harper, A. B., Wiltshire, A. J., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Williams, K., and Duran-Rojas, C.: Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2857–2873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, 2018. 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
Kim, H.: Global soil wetness project phase 3 atmospheric boundary conditions (Experiment 1), Data Integration and Analysis System (DIAS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.20783/DIAS.501, 2017. a
Loeppky, J. L., Sacks, J., and Welch, W. J.: Choosing the Sample Size of a Computer Experiment: A Practical Guide, Technometrics, 51, 366–376, https://doi.org/10.1198/TECH.2009.08040, 2009. a
McKay, M., Beckman, R., and Conover, W.: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics, 42, 239–245, https://doi.org/10.2307/1268522, 1979. a
McNeall, D.: MetOffice/jules_ppe_gmd: v0.2.0 (v0.2.0), Zenodo [code and data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7327732, 2024. a
McNeall, D., Williams, J., Booth, B., Betts, R., Challenor, P., Wiltshire, A., and Sexton, D.: The impact of structural error on parameter constraint in a climate model, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 917–935, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-917-2016, 2016. a, b
McNeall, D., Williams, J., Betts, R., Booth, B., Challenor, P., Good, P., and Wiltshire, A.: Correcting a bias in a climate model with an augmented emulator, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2487–2509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2487-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d
NCAR – Research Applications Laboratory: verification: Weather Forecast Verification Utilities, r package version 1.42, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=verification (last access: 13 October 2021), 2015. a
Pianosi, F., Beven, K., Freer, J., Hall, J. W., Rougier, J., Stephenson, D. B., and Wagener, T.: Sensitivity analysis of environmental models: A systematic review with practical workflow, Environ. Modell. Softw., 79, 214–232, 2016. a
Pujol, G., Iooss, B., Sebastien Da Veiga, A. J., Fruth, J., Gilquin, L., Guillaume, J., Gratiet, L. L., Lemaitre, P., Ramos, B., and Touati, T.: sensitivity: Sensitivity Analysis, r package version 1.11.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sensitivity (last access: 12 April 2021), 2015. a
Pukelsheim, F.: The three sigma rule, Am. Stat., 48, 88–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1994.10476030, 1994. a
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/ (last access: 29 February 2020), 2016. a
Roustant, O., Ginsbourger, D., and Deville, Y.: DiceKriging, DiceOptim: Two R Packages for the Analysis of Computer Experiments by Kriging-Based Metamodeling and Optimization, J. Stat. Softw., 51, 1–55, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v051.i01, 2012. a, b
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., and Chan, K. P.-S.: A Quantitative Model-Independent Method for Global Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output, Technometrics, 41, 39–56, https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1999.10485594, 1999. a
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019. a
Sexton, D. M., McSweeney, C. F., Rostron, J. W., Yamazaki, K., Booth, B. B., Murphy, J. M., Regayre, L., Johnson, J. S., and Karmalkar, A. V.: A perturbed parameter ensemble of HadGEM3-GC3. 05 coupled model projections: part 1: selecting the parameter combinations, Clim. Dynam., 56, 3395–3436, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05709-9, 2021. a
Urban, N. M. and Fricker, T. E.: A comparison of Latin hypercube and grid ensemble designs for the multivariate emulation of an Earth system model, Comput. Geosci., 36, 746–755, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.11.004, 2010. a
van den Hurk, B., Kim, H., Krinner, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Derksen, C., Oki, T., Douville, H., Colin, J., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Viovy, N., Puma, M. J., Wada, Y., Li, W., Jia, B., Alessandri, A., Lawrence, D. M., Weedon, G. P., Ellis, R., Hagemann, S., Mao, J., Flanner, M. G., Zampieri, M., Materia, S., Law, R. M., and Sheffield, J.: LS3MIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: the Land Surface, Snow and Soil moisture Model Intercomparison Project – aims, setup and expected outcome, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2809–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2809-2016, 2016. a
Vernon, I., Goldstein, M., and Bower, R.: Galaxy formation: a Bayesian uncertainty analysis, Bayesian Anal., 5, 619–669, https://doi.org/10.1214/10-BA524, 2010. a, b
Vernon, I., Goldstein, M., and Bower, R.: Galaxy Formation: Bayesian History Matching for the Observable Universe, Statist. Sci., 29, 81–90, https://doi.org/10.1214/12-STS412, 2014. a
Williamson, D. and Vernon, I.: Efficient uniform designs for multi-wave computer experiments, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.3520, 2013. a
Williamson, D., Goldstein, M., Allison, L., Blaker, A., Challenor, P., Jackson, L., and Yamazaki, K.: History matching for exploring and reducing climate model parameter space using observations and a large perturbed physics ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 41, 1703–1729, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1896-4, 2013. 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, b
Wiltshire, A. J., Duran Rojas, M. C., Edwards, J. M., Gedney, N., Harper, A. B., Hartley, A. J., Hendry, M. A., Robertson, E., and Smout-Day, K.: JULES-GL7: the Global Land configuration of the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator version 7.0 and 7.2, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 483–505, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-483-2020, 2020. a
Wiltshire, A. J., Burke, E. J., Chadburn, S. E., Jones, C. D., Cox, P. M., Davies-Barnard, T., Friedlingstein, P., Harper, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Sitch, S., and Zaehle, S.: JULES-CN: a coupled terrestrial carbon–nitrogen scheme (JULES vn5.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021. a, b
Short summary
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us understand and predict climate change and its impacts. These simulations are not perfect reproductions of the real land surface, and that can make them less effective tools. We use new statistical and computational techniques to help us understand how different our models are from the real land surface, how to make them more realistic, and how well we can simulate past and future climate.
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us...
