Articles | Volume 17, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1813-2024
© 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-17-1813-2024
© 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
| 
29 Feb 2024
Model evaluation paper |
| 29 Feb 2024
| 29 Feb 2024
Assessment of climate biases in OpenIFS version 43r3 across model horizontal resolutions and time steps
Abhishek Savita
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Joakim Kjellsson
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Robin Pilch Kedzierski
Meteorological Institute, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Mojib Latif
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Tabea Rahm
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Sebastian Wahl
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Wonsun Park
Center for Climate Physics, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Busan, Republic of Korea
Department of Climate System, Pusan National University, Busan, Republic of Korea
Related authors
Yingxue Liu, Joakim Kjellsson, Abhishek Savita, and Wonsun Park
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5435–5449, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5435-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5435-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of horizontal resolution and model time step on extreme precipitation over Europe is examined in OpenIFS. We find that the biases are reduced with higher horizontal resolution but not with a shorter time step. The large-scale precipitation is sensitive to the horizontal resolution and time step; however, the convective precipitation is sensitive to the model time step. Higher horizontal resolution is more important for extreme precipitation simulation than a shorter time step.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Karina von Schuckmann, Audrey Minière, Flora Gues, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Gottfried Kirchengast, Susheel Adusumilli, Fiammetta Straneo, Michaël Ablain, Richard P. Allan, Paul M. Barker, Hugo Beltrami, Alejandro Blazquez, Tim Boyer, Lijing Cheng, John Church, Damien Desbruyeres, Han Dolman, Catia M. Domingues, Almudena García-García, Donata Giglio, John E. Gilson, Maximilian Gorfer, Leopold Haimberger, Maria Z. Hakuba, Stefan Hendricks, Shigeki Hosoda, Gregory C. Johnson, Rachel Killick, Brian King, Nicolas Kolodziejczyk, Anton Korosov, Gerhard Krinner, Mikael Kuusela, Felix W. Landerer, Moritz Langer, Thomas Lavergne, Isobel Lawrence, Yuehua Li, John Lyman, Florence Marti, Ben Marzeion, Michael Mayer, Andrew H. MacDougall, Trevor McDougall, Didier Paolo Monselesan, Jan Nitzbon, Inès Otosaka, Jian Peng, Sarah Purkey, Dean Roemmich, Kanako Sato, Katsunari Sato, Abhishek Savita, Axel Schweiger, Andrew Shepherd, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Leon Simons, Donald A. Slater, Thomas Slater, Andrea K. Steiner, Toshio Suga, Tanguy Szekely, Wim Thiery, Mary-Louise Timmermans, Inne Vanderkelen, Susan E. Wjiffels, Tonghua Wu, and Michael Zemp
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1675–1709, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Earth's climate is out of energy balance, and this study quantifies how much heat has consequently accumulated over the past decades (ocean: 89 %, land: 6 %, cryosphere: 4 %, atmosphere: 1 %). Since 1971, this accumulated heat reached record values at an increasing pace. The Earth heat inventory provides a comprehensive view on the status and expectation of global warming, and we call for an implementation of this global climate indicator into the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake.
Yingxue Liu, Joakim Kjellsson, Abhishek Savita, and Wonsun Park
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5435–5449, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5435-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5435-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of horizontal resolution and model time step on extreme precipitation over Europe is examined in OpenIFS. We find that the biases are reduced with higher horizontal resolution but not with a shorter time step. The large-scale precipitation is sensitive to the horizontal resolution and time step; however, the convective precipitation is sensitive to the model time step. Higher horizontal resolution is more important for extreme precipitation simulation than a shorter time step.
Ja-Yeon Moon, Jan Streffing, Sun-Seon Lee, Tido Semmler, Miguel Andrés-Martínez, Jiao Chen, Eun-Byeoul Cho, Jung-Eun Chu, Christian L. E. Franzke, Jan P. Gärtner, Rohit Ghosh, Jan Hegewald, Songyee Hong, Dae-Won Kim, Nikolay Koldunov, June-Yi Lee, Zihao Lin, Chao Liu, Svetlana N. Loza, Wonsun Park, Woncheol Roh, Dmitry V. Sein, Sahil Sharma, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jun-Hyeok Son, Malte F. Stuecker, Qiang Wang, Gyuseok Yi, Martina Zapponini, Thomas Jung, and Axel Timmermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1103–1134, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1103-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1103-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Based on a series of storm-resolving greenhouse warming simulations conducted with the AWI-CM3 model at 9 km global atmosphere and 4–25 km ocean resolution, we present new projections of regional climate change, modes of climate variability, and extreme events. The 10-year-long high-resolution simulations for the 2000s, 2030s, 2060s, and 2090s were initialized from a coarser-resolution transient run (31 km atmosphere) which follows the SSP5-8.5 greenhouse gas emission scenario from 1950–2100 CE.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Ingo Richter, Ping Chang, Ping-Gin Chiu, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Takeshi Doi, Dietmar Dommenget, Guillaume Gastineau, Zoe E. Gillett, Aixue Hu, Takahito Kataoka, Noel S. Keenlyside, Fred Kucharski, Yuko M. Okumura, Wonsun Park, Malte F. Stuecker, Andréa S. Taschetto, Chunzai Wang, Stephen G. Yeager, and Sang-Wook Yeh
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2587–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical ocean basins influence each other through multiple pathways and mechanisms, referred to here as tropical basin interaction (TBI). Many researchers have examined TBI using comprehensive climate models but have obtained conflicting results. This may be partly due to differences in experiment protocols and partly due to systematic model errors. The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP) aims to address this problem by designing a set of TBI experiments that will be performed by multiple models.
Wenjuan Huo, Tobias Spiegl, Sebastian Wahl, Katja Matthes, Ulrike Langematz, Holger Pohlmann, and Jürgen Kröger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2589–2612, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2589-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2589-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties of the solar signals in the middle atmosphere are assessed based on large ensemble simulations with multiple climate models. Our results demonstrate that the 11-year solar signals in the shortwave heating rate, temperature, and ozone anomalies are significant and robust. The simulated dynamical responses are model-dependent, and solar imprints in the polar night jet are influenced by biases in the model used.
Mona Zolghadrshojaee, Susann Tegtmeier, Sean M. Davis, Robin Pilch Kedzierski, and Leopold Haimberger
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-82, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-82, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The tropical tropopause layer (TTL) is a crucial region where the troposphere transitions into the stratosphere, influencing air mass transport. This study examines temperature trends in the TTL and lower stratosphere using data from weather balloons, satellites, and reanalysis datasets. We found cooling trends in the TTL from 1980–2001, followed by warming from 2002–2023. These shifts are linked to changes in atmospheric circulation and impact water vapor transport into the stratosphere.
Sebastian Steinig, Wolf Dummann, Peter Hofmann, Martin Frank, Wonsun Park, Thomas Wagner, and Sascha Flögel
Clim. Past, 20, 1537–1558, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-1537-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-1537-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The opening of the South Atlantic Ocean, starting ~ 140 million years ago, had the potential to influence the global carbon cycle and climate trends. We use 36 climate model experiments to simulate the evolution of ocean circulation in this narrow basin. We test different combinations of palaeogeographic and atmospheric CO2 reconstructions with geochemical data to not only quantify the influence of individual processes on ocean circulation but also to find nonlinear interactions between them.
Mona Zolghadrshojaee, Susann Tegtmeier, Sean M. Davis, and Robin Pilch Kedzierski
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7405–7419, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Satellite data challenge the idea of an overall cooling trend in the tropical tropopause layer. From 2002 to 2022, a warming trend was observed, diverging from earlier findings. Tropopause height changes indicate dynamic processes alongside radiative effects. Upper-tropospheric warming contrasts with lower-stratosphere temperatures. The study highlights the complex interplay of factors shaping temperature trends.
Holly C. Ayres, David Ferreira, Wonsun Park, Joakim Kjellsson, and Malin Ödalen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 805–820, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-805-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-805-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Weddell Sea Polynya (WSP) is a large, closed-off opening in winter sea ice that has opened only a couple of times since we started using satellites to observe sea ice. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of the WSP on the atmosphere. We use three numerical models of the atmosphere, and for each, we use two levels of detail. We find that the WSP causes warming but only locally, alongside an increase in precipitation, and shows some dependence on the large-scale background winds.
Tabea Rahm, Robin Pilch Kedzierski, Martje Hänsch, and Katja Matthes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-667, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-667, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs) are extreme wintertime events that can impact surface weather. However, a distinct surface response is not observed for every SSW. Here, we classify SSWs that do and do not impact the troposphere in ERA5 reanalysis data. In addition, we evaluate the effects of two kinds of waves: planetary and synoptic-scale. Our findings emphasize that the lower stratosphere and synoptic-scale waves play crucial roles in coupling the SSW signal to the surface.
Jake W. Casselman, Joke F. Lübbecke, Tobias Bayr, Wenjuan Huo, Sebastian Wahl, and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 471–487, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-471-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-471-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has remote effects on the tropical North Atlantic (TNA), but the connections' nonlinearity (strength of response to an increasing ENSO signal) is not always well represented in models. Using the Community Earth System Model version 1 – Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Mode (CESM-WACCM) and the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1, we find that the TNA responds linearly to extreme El Niño but nonlinearly to extreme La Niña for CESM-WACCM.
Karina von Schuckmann, Audrey Minière, Flora Gues, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Gottfried Kirchengast, Susheel Adusumilli, Fiammetta Straneo, Michaël Ablain, Richard P. Allan, Paul M. Barker, Hugo Beltrami, Alejandro Blazquez, Tim Boyer, Lijing Cheng, John Church, Damien Desbruyeres, Han Dolman, Catia M. Domingues, Almudena García-García, Donata Giglio, John E. Gilson, Maximilian Gorfer, Leopold Haimberger, Maria Z. Hakuba, Stefan Hendricks, Shigeki Hosoda, Gregory C. Johnson, Rachel Killick, Brian King, Nicolas Kolodziejczyk, Anton Korosov, Gerhard Krinner, Mikael Kuusela, Felix W. Landerer, Moritz Langer, Thomas Lavergne, Isobel Lawrence, Yuehua Li, John Lyman, Florence Marti, Ben Marzeion, Michael Mayer, Andrew H. MacDougall, Trevor McDougall, Didier Paolo Monselesan, Jan Nitzbon, Inès Otosaka, Jian Peng, Sarah Purkey, Dean Roemmich, Kanako Sato, Katsunari Sato, Abhishek Savita, Axel Schweiger, Andrew Shepherd, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Leon Simons, Donald A. Slater, Thomas Slater, Andrea K. Steiner, Toshio Suga, Tanguy Szekely, Wim Thiery, Mary-Louise Timmermans, Inne Vanderkelen, Susan E. Wjiffels, Tonghua Wu, and Michael Zemp
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1675–1709, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Earth's climate is out of energy balance, and this study quantifies how much heat has consequently accumulated over the past decades (ocean: 89 %, land: 6 %, cryosphere: 4 %, atmosphere: 1 %). Since 1971, this accumulated heat reached record values at an increasing pace. The Earth heat inventory provides a comprehensive view on the status and expectation of global warming, and we call for an implementation of this global climate indicator into the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake.
Jan Streffing, Dmitry Sidorenko, Tido Semmler, Lorenzo Zampieri, Patrick Scholz, Miguel Andrés-Martínez, Nikolay Koldunov, Thomas Rackow, Joakim Kjellsson, Helge Goessling, Marylou Athanase, Qiang Wang, Jan Hegewald, Dmitry V. Sein, Longjiang Mu, Uwe Fladrich, Dirk Barbi, Paul Gierz, Sergey Danilov, Stephan Juricke, Gerrit Lohmann, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model, AWI-CM3. Our model is significantly more computationally efficient than its predecessors AWI-CM1 and AWI-CM2. We show that the model, although cheaper to run, provides results of similar quality when modeling the historic period from 1850 to 2014. We identify the remaining weaknesses to outline future work. Finally we preview an improved simulation where the reduction in computational cost has to be invested in higher model resolution.
Chia-Te Chien, Jonathan V. Durgadoo, Dana Ehlert, Ivy Frenger, David P. Keller, Wolfgang Koeve, Iris Kriest, Angela Landolfi, Lavinia Patara, Sebastian Wahl, and Andreas Oschlies
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5987–6024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present the implementation and evaluation of a marine biogeochemical model, Model of Oceanic Pelagic Stoichiometry (MOPS) in the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure (FOCI) climate model. FOCI-MOPS enables the simulation of marine biological processes, the marine carbon, nitrogen and oxygen cycles, and air–sea gas exchange of CO2 and O2. As shown by our evaluation, FOCI-MOPS shows an overall adequate performance that makes it an appropriate tool for Earth climate system simulations.
Ioana Ivanciu, Katja Matthes, Arne Biastoch, Sebastian Wahl, and Jan Harlaß
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 139–171, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-139-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-139-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, while the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recover during the twenty-first century. We separate the effects of ozone recovery and of greenhouse gases on the Southern Hemisphere atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and we find that ozone recovery is generally reducing the impact of greenhouse gases, with the exception of certain regions of the stratosphere during spring, where the two effects reinforce each other.
Ioana Ivanciu, Katja Matthes, Sebastian Wahl, Jan Harlaß, and Arne Biastoch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5777–5806, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5777-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5777-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Antarctic ozone hole has driven substantial dynamical changes in the Southern Hemisphere atmosphere over the past decades. This study separates the historical impacts of ozone depletion from those of rising levels of greenhouse gases and investigates how these impacts are captured in two types of climate models: one using interactive atmospheric chemistry and one prescribing the CMIP6 ozone field. The effects of ozone depletion are more pronounced in the model with interactive chemistry.
Sabine Haase, Jaika Fricke, Tim Kruschke, Sebastian Wahl, and Katja Matthes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 14043–14061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14043-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-14043-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone depletion over Antarctica was shown to influence the tropospheric jet in the Southern Hemisphere. We investigate the atmospheric response to ozone depletion comparing climate model ensembles with interactive and prescribed ozone fields. We show that allowing feedbacks between ozone chemistry and model physics as well as including asymmetries in ozone leads to a strengthened ozone depletion signature in the stratosphere but does not significantly affect the tropospheric jet position.
Robin Pilch Kedzierski, Katja Matthes, and Karl Bumke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 11569–11592, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11569-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11569-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Rossby wave packet (RWP) dynamics are crucial for weather forecasting, climate change projections and stratosphere–troposphere interactions. Our study is a first attempt to describe RWP behavior in the UTLS with global coverage directly from observations, using GNSS-RO data. Our novel results show an interesting relation of RWP vertical propagation with sudden stratospheric warmings and provide very useful information to improve RWP diagnostics in models and reanalysis.
Cited articles
Athanasiadis, P. J., Ogawa, F., Omrani, N.-E., Keenlyside, N., Schiemann, R., Baker, A. J., Vidale, P. L., Bellucci, A., Ruggieri, P., and Haarsma, R.: Mitigating climate biases in the midlatitude North Atlantic by increasing model resolution: SST gradients and their relation to blocking and the jet, J. Climate, 35, 3385–3406, 2022.
Bayr, T., Latif, M., Dommenget, D., Wengel, C., Harlaß, J., and Park, W.: Mean-state dependence of ENSO atmospheric feedbacks in climate models, Clim. Dynam., 50, 3171–3194, 2018.
Beljaars, A., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Bozzo, A., Forbes, R., Hogan, R. J., Köhler, M., Morcrette, J.-J., Tompkins, A. M., and Viterbo, P.: The numerics of physical parametrization in the ECMWF model, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 137, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00137, 2018.
Bracegirdle, T., Holmes, C., Hosking, J., Marshall, G., Osman, M., Patterson, M., and Rackow, T.: Improvements in circumpolar Southern Hemisphere extratropical atmospheric circulation in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5, Earth Space Sci., 7, e2019EA001065, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA001065, 2020.
Branković, C. and Gregory, D.: Impact of horizontal resolution on seasonal integrations, Clim. Dynam., 18, 123–143, 2001.
CERFACS: The OOASIS Coupler, CERFACS [software], https://oasis.cerfacs.fr/en/ (last access: 30 September 2021), 2024.
Chen, G. and Plumb, R. A.: Quantifying the eddy feedback and the persistence of the zonal index in an idealized atmospheric model, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 3707–3720, 2009.
Couldrey, M. P., Gregory, J. M., Boeira Dias, F., Dobrohotoff, P., Domingues, C. M., Garuba, O., Griffies, S. M., Haak, H., Hu, A., and Ishii, M.: What causes the spread of model projections of ocean dynamic sea-level change in response to greenhouse gas forcing?, Clim. Dynam., 56, 155–187, 2021.
Dawson, A., Palmer, T., and Corti, S.: Simulating regime structures in weather and climate prediction models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053284, 2012.
Döscher, R., Acosta, M., Alessandri, A., Anthoni, P., Arsouze, T., Bergman, T., Bernardello, R., Boussetta, S., Caron, L.-P., Carver, G., Castrillo, M., Catalano, F., Cvijanovic, I., Davini, P., Dekker, E., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Docquier, D., Echevarria, P., Fladrich, U., Fuentes-Franco, R., Gröger, M., v. Hardenberg, J., Hieronymus, J., Karami, M. P., Keskinen, J.-P., Koenigk, T., Makkonen, R., Massonnet, F., Ménégoz, M., Miller, P. A., Moreno-Chamarro, E., Nieradzik, L., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., O'Donnell, D., Ollinaho, P., van den Oord, G., Ortega, P., Prims, O. T., Ramos, A., Reerink, T., Rousset, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Schmith, T., Schrödner, R., Serva, F., Sicardi, V., Sloth Madsen, M., Smith, B., Tian, T., Tourigny, E., Uotila, P., Vancoppenolle, M., Wang, S., Wårlind, D., Willén, U., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yepes-Arbós, X., and Zhang, Q.: The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022.
ECMWF: OpenIFS programme, ECMWF [software], https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS/About+OpenIFS (last access: 28 February 2024), 2018.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Fabiano, F., Christensen, H., Strommen, K., Athanasiadis, P., Baker, A., Schiemann, R., and Corti, S.: Euro-Atlantic weather Regimes in the PRIMAVERA coupled climate simulations: impact of resolution and mean state biases on model performance, Clim. Dynam., 54, 5031–5048, 2020.
Fabiano, F., Meccia, V. L., Davini, P., Ghinassi, P., and Corti, S.: A regime view of future atmospheric circulation changes in northern mid-latitudes, Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 163–180, 2021.
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S. C., Collins, W., Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., and Eyring, V.: Evaluation of climate models, in: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 741–866, 2014.
Forbes, R. and Tompkins, A.: An improved representation of cloud and precipitation, ECMWF Newsletter, 129, 13–18, 2011.
Gates, W. L., Boyle, J. S., Covey, C., Dease, C. G., Doutriaux, C. M., Drach, R. S., Fiorino, M., Gleckler, P. J., Hnilo, J. J., and Marlais, S. M.: An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 29–56, 1999.
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., and Reichle, R.: The modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, 2017.
Haarsma, R., Acosta, M., Bakhshi, R., Bretonnière, P.-A., Caron, L.-P., Castrillo, M., Corti, S., Davini, P., Exarchou, E., Fabiano, F., Fladrich, U., Fuentes Franco, R., García-Serrano, J., von Hardenberg, J., Koenigk, T., Levine, X., Meccia, V. L., van Noije, T., van den Oord, G., Palmeiro, F. M., Rodrigo, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Tourigny, E., Wang, S., van Weele, M., and Wyser, K.: HighResMIP versions of EC-Earth: EC-Earth3P and EC-Earth3P-HR – description, model computational performance and basic validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3507–3527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3507-2020, 2020.
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., and Lister, D. H.: Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations–the CRU TS3. 10 Dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 623–642, 2014.
Hazeleger, W., Wang, X., and Severijns, C.: SS tef anescu, R Bintanja, A Sterl, Klaus Wyser, T Semmler, S Yang, B Van den Hurk, et al. Ec-earth v2. 2: description and validation of a new seamless earth system prediction model, Clim. Dynam., 39, 2611–2629, 2012.
He, C. and Zhou, T.: The two interannual variability modes of the western North Pacific subtropical high simulated by 28 CMIP5–AMIP models, Clim. Dynam., 43, 2455–2469, 2014.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., and Schepers, D.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020 (data available at: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/, last access: 15 February 2022).
Hogan, R. J. and Bozzo, A.: A flexible and efficient radiation scheme for the ECMWF model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1990–2008, 2018.
Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Arkin, P., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Gruber, A., Janowiak, J., McNab, A., Rudolf, B., and Schneider, U.: The global precipitation climatology project (GPCP) combined precipitation dataset, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 5–20, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0005:TGPCPG>2.0.CO;2, 1997 (data available at: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.gpcp.html, last access: 15 February 2022).
Jung, T., Miller, M., Palmer, T., Towers, P., Wedi, N., Achuthavarier, D., Adams, J., Altshuler, E., Cash, B., and Kinter Iii, J.: High-resolution global climate simulations with the ECMWF model in Project Athena: Experimental design, model climate, and seasonal forecast skill, J. Climate, 25, 3155–3172, 2012.
Kim, S. T., Cai, W., Jin, F.-F., and Yu, J.-Y.: ENSO stability in coupled climate models and its association with mean state, Clim. Dynam., 42, 3313–3321, 2014.
Kjellsson, J., Streffing, J., Carver, G., and Köhler, M.: From weather forecasting to climate modelling using OpenIFS, ECMWF Newsletter, 164, 38–41, 2020.
Liu, B., Gan, B., Cai, W., Wu, L., Geng, T., Wang, H., Wang, S., Jing, Z., and Jia, F.: Will increasing climate model resolution be beneficial for ENSO simulation?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL096932, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096932, 2022.
Ma, P.-L., Harrop, B. E., Larson, V. E., Neale, R. B., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Wang, H., Zhang, K., Klein, S. A., Zelinka, M. D., Zhang, Y., Qian, Y., Yoon, J.-H., Jones, C. R., Huang, M., Tai, S.-L., Singh, B., Bogenschutz, P. A., Zheng, X., Lin, W., Quaas, J., Chepfer, H., Brunke, M. A., Zeng, X., Mülmenstädt, J., Hagos, S., Zhang, Z., Song, H., Liu, X., Pritchard, M. S., Wan, H., Wang, J., Tang, Q., Caldwell, P. M., Fan, J., Berg, L. K., Fast, J. D., Taylor, M. A., Golaz, J.-C., Xie, S., Rasch, P. J., and Leung, L. R.: Better calibration of cloud parameterizations and subgrid effects increases the fidelity of the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022.
Matthes, K., Biastoch, A., Wahl, S., Harlaß, J., Martin, T., Brücher, T., Drews, A., Ehlert, D., Getzlaff, K., Krüger, F., Rath, W., Scheinert, M., Schwarzkopf, F. U., Bayr, T., Schmidt, H., and Park, W.: The Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1 (FOCI1): mean state and variability, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2533–2568, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2533-2020, 2020.
Meehl, G. A. and Teng, H.: CMIP5 multi-model hindcasts for the mid-1970s shift and early 2000s hiatus and predictions for 2016–2035, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1711–1716, 2014.
Meng, Y., Hao, Z., Feng, S., Guo, Q., and Zhang, Y.: Multivariate bias corrections of CMIP6 model simulations of compound dry and hot events across China, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 104005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8e86, 2022.
Meurdesoif, Y.: XIOS 2.0 (Revision 1297), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905653, 2017.
Miguel, P. G., dbarbi, Streffing, J., seb-wahl, Wieters, N., Ural, D., Kjellsson, J., Koldunov, N., ackerlar, mbutzin, Semmler, T., Hegewald, J., mwerner-awi, chrisdane, SpontEIN, a270105, christian-stepanek, and Athanase, M.: esm-tools/esm_tools: Release 6 (v6.0.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5787476, 2021.
Osborn, T. J. and Jones, P. D.: The CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature data set: construction, previous versions and dissemination via Google Earth, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 6, 61–68, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-6-61-2014, 2014 (data available at: http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cru/, last access: 15 February 2022).
Pilch Kedzierski, R., Matthes, K., and Bumke, K.: New insights into Rossby wave packet properties in the extratropical UTLS using GNSS radio occultations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 11569–11592, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11569-2020, 2020.
Roberts, C. D., Senan, R., Molteni, F., Boussetta, S., Mayer, M., and Keeley, S. P. E.: Climate model configurations of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (ECMWF-IFS cycle 43r1) for HighResMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3681–3712, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3681-2018, 2018.
Savita, A.: Assessment of Climate Biases in OpenIFS Version 43R3 across Model Horizontal Resolutions and Time Steps, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel [data set], https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12085/c74887dc-e609-4392-9faf-48c67276d5d1 (last access: 27 July 2023), 2023a.
Savita, A.: Atmospheric and Coupled Model inter-comparison Study, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8189718, 2023b.
Simmons, A. J. and Burridge, D. M.: An energy and angular-momentum conserving vertical finite-difference scheme and hybrid vertical coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 109, 758–766, 1981.
Streffing, J., Sidorenko, D., Semmler, T., Zampieri, L., Scholz, P., Andrés-Martínez, M., Koldunov, N., Rackow, T., Kjellsson, J., Goessling, H., Athanase, M., Wang, Q., Hegewald, J., Sein, D. V., Mu, L., Fladrich, U., Barbi, D., Gierz, P., Danilov, S., Juricke, S., Lohmann, G., and Jung, T.: AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022.
Strong, C. and Magnusdottir, G.: Tropospheric Rossby wave breaking and the NAO/NAM, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 2861–2876, 2008.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, 2012.
Temperton, C., Hortal, M., and Simmons, A.: A two-time-level semi-Lagrangian global spectral model, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 111–127, 2001.
Tiedtke, M.: Representation of clouds in large-scale models, Mon. Weather Rev., 121, 3040–3061, 1993.
Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J. F., Michou, M., and Moine, M. P.: Evaluation of CMIP6 deck experiments with CNRM-CM6-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2177–2213, 2019.
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Jones, C., Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M., Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019.
Williamson, D. L., Kiehl, J. T., and Hack, J. J.: Climate sensitivity of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2) to horizontal resolution, Clim. Dynam., 11, 377–397, 1995.
Wolf, G. and Wirth, V.: Diagnosing the horizontal propagation of Rossby wave packets along the midlatitude waveguide, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 3247–3264, 2017.
Zhou, S., Huang, G., and Huang, P.: Excessive ITCZ but negative SST biases in the tropical Pacific simulated by CMIP5/6 models: The role of the meridional pattern of SST bias, J. Climate, 33, 5305–5316, 2020.
Short summary
The OpenIFS model is used to examine the impact of horizontal resolutions (HR) and model time steps. We find that the surface wind biases over the oceans, in particular the Southern Ocean, are sensitive to the model time step and HR, with the HR having the smallest biases. When using a coarse-resolution model with a shorter time step, a similar improvement is also found. Climate biases can be reduced in the OpenIFS model at a cheaper cost by reducing the time step rather than increasing the HR.
The OpenIFS model is used to examine the impact of horizontal resolutions (HR) and model time...
