Articles | Volume 17, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024
© 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-17-3919-2024
© 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
| 
15 May 2024
Model evaluation paper |
| 15 May 2024
| 15 May 2024
Systematic and objective evaluation of Earth system models: PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP) version 3
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Peter J. Gleckler
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Min-Seop Ahn
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
ESSIC, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Ana Ordonez
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Paul A. Ullrich
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Kenneth R. Sperber
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
retired
Karl E. Taylor
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Yann Y. Planton
NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA, USA
School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
Eric Guilyardi
LOCEAN-IPSL, CNRS-IRD-MNHN-Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
National Centre for Atmospheric Science – Climate, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Paul Durack
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Celine Bonfils
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Mark D. Zelinka
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Li-Wei Chao
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Bo Dong
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Charles Doutriaux
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Chengzhu Zhang
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Tom Vo
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Jason Boutte
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Michael F. Wehner
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Angeline G. Pendergrass
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
Daehyun Kim
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Andrew T. Wittenberg
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
John Krasting
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
Related authors
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate downscaled products by examining locally relevant co-variances during precipitation events. Common statistical downscaling techniques preserve expected co-variances during convective precipitation (a stationary phenomenon). However, they dampen future intensification of frontal precipitation (a non-stationary phenomenon) captured in global climate models and dynamical downscaling. Our study quantifies a ramification of the stationarity assumption underlying statistical downscaling.
Min-Seop Ahn, Paul A. Ullrich, Peter J. Gleckler, Jiwoo Lee, Ana C. Ordonez, and Angeline G. Pendergrass
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a framework for regional-scale evaluation of simulated precipitation distributions with 62 climate reference regions and 10 metrics and apply it to evaluate CMIP5 and CMIP6 models against multiple satellite-based precipitation products. The common model biases identified in this study are mainly associated with the overestimated light precipitation and underestimated heavy precipitation. These biases persist from earlier-generation models and have been slightly improved in CMIP6.
Baylor Fox-Kemper, Patricia DeRepentigny, Anne Marie Treguier, Christian Stepanek, Eleanor O’Rourke, Chloe Mackallah, Alberto Meucci, Yevgeny Aksenov, Paul J. Durack, Nicole Feldl, Vanessa Hernaman, Céline Heuzé, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gaurav Madan, André L. Marquez, François Massonnet, Jenny Mecking, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Patrick C. Taylor, Wan-Ling Tseng, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
Anna Zehrung, Andrew D. King, Zebedee Nicholls, Mark D. Zelinka, and Malte Meinshausen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2252, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2252, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Gregory method is a common approach for calculating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). However, studies which apply this method lack transparency in how model data is processed prior to calculating the ECS, inhibiting replicability. Different choices of global and annual mean weighting, anomaly calculation, and linear regression fit can affect the ECS estimates. We investigate the impact of these choices and propose a standardised method for future ECS calculations.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Timothy A. Myers, Yi Qin, and Stephen A. Klein
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1477–1495, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1477-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1477-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds lie at the heart of uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and radiative forcing, making it imperative to properly diagnose their radiative effects. Here we provide a recommended methodology and code base for the community to use in performing such diagnoses using cloud radiative kernels. We show that properly accounting for changes in obscuration of lower-level clouds by upper-level clouds is important for accurate diagnosis and attribution of cloud feedbacks and adjustments.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
John Patrick Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matthew Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O’Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript provides the motivation and experimental design for the seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) to coordinate community based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for: prediction and projection, characterization, attribution and process understanding; vulnerability, impacts and adaptations analysis; national and international climate assessments; and society at large.
Andrew C. Ross, Charles A. Stock, Vimal Koul, Thomas L. Delworth, Feiyu Lu, Andrew Wittenberg, and Michael A. Alexander
Ocean Sci., 20, 1631–1656, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1631-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1631-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we use a high-resolution regional ocean model to downscale seasonal ocean forecasts from the Seamless System for Prediction and EArth System Research (SPEAR) model of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). We find that the downscaled model has significantly higher prediction skill in many cases.
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate downscaled products by examining locally relevant co-variances during precipitation events. Common statistical downscaling techniques preserve expected co-variances during convective precipitation (a stationary phenomenon). However, they dampen future intensification of frontal precipitation (a non-stationary phenomenon) captured in global climate models and dynamical downscaling. Our study quantifies a ramification of the stationarity assumption underlying statistical downscaling.
Angeline G. Pendergrass, Michael P. Byrne, Oliver Watt-Meyer, Penelope Maher, and Mark J. Webb
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6365–6378, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6365-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6365-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The width of the tropical rain belt affects many aspects of our climate, yet we do not understand what controls it. To better understand it, we present a method to change it in numerical model experiments. We show that the method works well in four different models. The behavior of the width is unexpectedly simple in some ways, such as how strong the winds are as it changes, but in other ways, it is more complicated, especially how temperature increases with carbon dioxide.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Qi Tang, Philip Cameron-smith, and Chengzhu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3687–3731, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a regionally refined climate model that allows resolved convection and performed a 20-year projection to the end of the century. The model has a resolution of 3.25 km in California, which allows us to predict climate with unprecedented accuracy, and a resolution of 100 km for the rest of the globe to achieve efficient, self-consistent simulations. The model produces superior results in reproducing climate patterns over California that typical modern climate models cannot resolve.
John T. Fasullo, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Julie M. Caron, Nan Rosenbloom, Gerald A. Meehl, Warren Strand, Sasha Glanville, Samantha Stevenson, Maria Molina, Christine A. Shields, Chengzhu Zhang, James Benedict, Hailong Wang, and Tony Bartoletti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-367-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-367-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model large ensembles provide a unique and invaluable means for estimating the climate response to external forcing agents and quantify contrasts in model structure. Here, an overview of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) version 2 large ensemble is given along with comparisons to large ensembles from E3SM version 1 and versions 1 and 2 of the Community Earth System Model. The paper provides broad and important context for users of these ensembles.
Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 415–430, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Remapping gridded data in a way that preserves the conservative properties of the climate system can be essential in coupling model components and for accurate assessment of the system’s energy and mass constituents. Remapping packages capable of handling a wide variety of grids can, for some common grids, calculate remapping weights that are somewhat inaccurate. Correcting for these errors, guidelines are provided to ensure conservation when the weights are used in practice.
Mark D. Zelinka, Christopher J. Smith, Yi Qin, and Karl E. Taylor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8879–8898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The primary uncertainty in how strongly Earth's climate has been perturbed by human activities comes from the unknown radiative impact of aerosol changes. Accurately quantifying these forcings – and their sub-components – in climate models is crucial for understanding the past and future simulated climate. In this study we describe biases in previously published estimates of aerosol radiative forcing in climate models and provide corrected estimates along with code for users to compute them.
Min-Seop Ahn, Paul A. Ullrich, Peter J. Gleckler, Jiwoo Lee, Ana C. Ordonez, and Angeline G. Pendergrass
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a framework for regional-scale evaluation of simulated precipitation distributions with 62 climate reference regions and 10 metrics and apply it to evaluate CMIP5 and CMIP6 models against multiple satellite-based precipitation products. The common model biases identified in this study are mainly associated with the overestimated light precipitation and underestimated heavy precipitation. These biases persist from earlier-generation models and have been slightly improved in CMIP6.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Zeyu Xue, Paul Ullrich, and Lai-Yung Ruby Leung
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1909–1927, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1909-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1909-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the sensitivity and robustness of conclusions drawn from the PGW method over the NEUS by conducting multiple PGW experiments and varying the perturbation spatial scales and choice of perturbed meteorological variables to provide a guideline for this increasingly popular regional modeling method. Overall, we recommend PGW experiments be performed with perturbations to temperature or the combination of temperature and wind at the gridpoint scale, depending on the research question.
Iris Elisabeth de Vries, Sebastian Sippel, Angeline Greene Pendergrass, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 81–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Precipitation change is an important consequence of climate change, but it is hard to detect and quantify. Our intuitive method yields robust and interpretable detection of forced precipitation change in three observational datasets for global mean and extreme precipitation, but the different observational datasets show different magnitudes of forced change. Assessment and reduction of uncertainties surrounding forced precipitation change are important for future projections and adaptation.
Chengzhu Zhang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Ryan Forsyth, Tom Vo, Shaocheng Xie, Zeshawn Shaheen, Gerald L. Potter, Xylar S. Asay-Davis, Charles S. Zender, Wuyin Lin, Chih-Chieh Chen, Chris R. Terai, Salil Mahajan, Tian Zhou, Karthik Balaguru, Qi Tang, Cheng Tao, Yuying Zhang, Todd Emmenegger, Susannah Burrows, and Paul A. Ullrich
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9031–9056, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system model (ESM) developers run automated analysis tools on data from candidate models to inform model development. This paper introduces a new Python package, E3SM Diags, that has been developed to support ESM development and use routinely in the development of DOE's Energy Exascale Earth System Model. This tool covers a set of essential diagnostics to evaluate the mean physical climate from simulations, as well as several process-oriented and phenomenon-based evaluation diagnostics.
Sjoukje Y. Philip, Sarah F. Kew, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Faron S. Anslow, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Robert Vautard, Dim Coumou, Kristie L. Ebi, Julie Arrighi, Roop Singh, Maarten van Aalst, Carolina Pereira Marghidan, Michael Wehner, Wenchang Yang, Sihan Li, Dominik L. Schumacher, Mathias Hauser, Rémy Bonnet, Linh N. Luu, Flavio Lehner, Nathan Gillett, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Chris Rodell, Roland B. Stull, Rosie Howard, and Friederike E. L. Otto
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1689–1713, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1689-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1689-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In June 2021, the Pacific Northwest of the US and Canada saw record temperatures far exceeding those previously observed. This attribution study found such a severe heat wave would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change. Assuming no nonlinear interactions, such events have become at least 150 times more common, are about 2 °C hotter and will become even more common as warming continues. Therefore, adaptation and mitigation are urgently needed to prepare society.
Yona Silvy, Clément Rousset, Eric Guilyardi, Jean-Baptiste Sallée, Juliette Mignot, Christian Ethé, and Gurvan Madec
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7683–7713, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7683-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7683-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A modeling framework is introduced to understand and decompose the mechanisms causing the ocean temperature, salinity and circulation to change since the pre-industrial period and into 21st century scenarios of global warming. This framework aims to look at the response to changes in the winds and in heat and freshwater exchanges at the ocean interface in global climate models, throughout the 1850–2100 period, to unravel their individual effects on the changing physical structure of the ocean.
Amy H. Peace, Ben B. B. Booth, Leighton A. Regayre, Ken S. Carslaw, David M. H. Sexton, Céline J. W. Bonfils, and John W. Rostron
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1215–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1215-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1215-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic aerosol emissions have been linked to driving climate responses such as shifts in the location of tropical rainfall. However, the interaction of aerosols with climate remains one of the most uncertain aspects of climate modelling and limits our ability to predict future climate change. We use an ensemble of climate model simulations to investigate what impact the large uncertainty in how aerosols interact with climate has on predicting future tropical rainfall shifts.
Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Laurent Bopp, Jim R. Christian, Tatiana Ilyina, John P. Krasting, Roland Séférian, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Jerry Tjiputra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1097–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the main driver for the natural variability of global atmospheric CO2. It modulates the CO2 fluxes in the tropical Pacific with anomalous CO2 influx during El Niño and outflux during La Niña. This relationship is projected to reverse by half of Earth system models studied here under the business-as-usual scenario. This study shows models that simulate a positive bias in surface carbonate concentrations simulate a shift in the ENSO–CO2 flux relationship.
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kalyn Dorheim, Michael Wehner, and Ruby Leung
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1427–1501, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1427-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1427-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We address the question of how large an initial condition ensemble of climate model simulations should be if we are concerned with accurately projecting future changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. We find that for most cases (and both models considered), an ensemble of 20–25 members is sufficient for many extreme metrics, spatial scales and time horizons. This may leave computational resources to tackle other uncertainties in climate model simulations with our ensembles.
Trevor J. McDougall, Paul M. Barker, Ryan M. Holmes, Rich Pawlowicz, Stephen M. Griffies, and Paul J. Durack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6445–6466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We show that the way that the air–sea heat flux is treated in ocean models means that the model's temperature variable should be interpreted as being Conservative Temperature, irrespective of whether the equation of state used in an ocean model is EOS-80 or TEOS-10.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Christina Heinze-Deml, Sebastian Sippel, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, and Nicolai Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4977–4999, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4977-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4977-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying dynamical and thermodynamical components of regional precipitation change is a key challenge in climate science. We introduce a novel statistical model (Latent Linear Adjustment Autoencoder) that combines the flexibility of deep neural networks with the robustness advantages of linear regression. The method enables estimation of the contribution of a coarse-scale atmospheric circulation proxy to daily precipitation at high resolution and in a spatially coherent manner.
Prabhat, Karthik Kashinath, Mayur Mudigonda, Sol Kim, Lukas Kapp-Schwoerer, Andre Graubner, Ege Karaismailoglu, Leo von Kleist, Thorsten Kurth, Annette Greiner, Ankur Mahesh, Kevin Yang, Colby Lewis, Jiayi Chen, Andrew Lou, Sathyavat Chandran, Ben Toms, Will Chapman, Katherine Dagon, Christine A. Shields, Travis O'Brien, Michael Wehner, and William Collins
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 107–124, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-107-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-107-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Detecting extreme weather events is a crucial step in understanding how they change due to climate change. Deep learning (DL) is remarkable at pattern recognition; however, it works best only when labeled datasets are available. We create
ClimateNet– an expert-labeled curated dataset – to train a DL model for detecting weather events and predicting changes in extreme precipitation. This work paves the way for DL-based automated, high-fidelity, and highly precise analytics of climate data.
Hsi-Yen Ma, Chen Zhou, Yunyan Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Xue Zheng, Shaocheng Xie, Wei-Ting Chen, and Chien-Ming Wu
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 73–90, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-73-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-73-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We propose an experimental design of a suite of multi-year, short-term hindcasts and compare them with corresponding observations or measurements for periods based on different weather and climate phenomena. This atypical way of evaluating model performance is particularly useful and beneficial, as these hindcasts can give scientists a robust picture of modeled precipitation, and cloud and radiation processes from their diurnal variation to year-to-year variability.
Lukas Brunner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Anna L. Merrifield, Ruth Lorenz, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects of historical climate and their degree of interdependence. Our method is found to increase projection skill and to correct for structurally similar models. The weighted end-of-century mean warming (2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014) is 3.7 °C with a likely (66 %) range of 3.1 to 4.6 °C for the strong climate change scenario SSP5-8.5; this is a reduction of 0.4 °C compared with the unweighted mean.
Landon A. Rieger, Jason N. S. Cole, John C. Fyfe, Stephen Po-Chedley, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Paul J. Durack, Nathan P. Gillett, and Qi Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4831–4843, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Recently, the stratospheric aerosol forcing dataset used as an input to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 was updated. This work explores the impact of those changes on the modelled historical climates in the CanESM5 and EAMv1 models. Temperature differences in the stratosphere shortly after the Pinatubo eruption are found to be significant, but surface temperatures and precipitation do not show a significant change.
Mark D. Risser and Michael F. Wehner
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 6, 115–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-115-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-115-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Evaluation of modern high-resolution global climate models often does not account for the geographic location of the underlying weather station data. In this paper, we quantify the impact of geographic sampling on the relative performance of climate model representations of precipitation extremes over the United States. We find that properly accounting for the geographic sampling of weather stations can significantly change the assessment of model performance.
Vivek K. Arora, Anna Katavouta, Richard G. Williams, Chris D. Jones, Victor Brovkin, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jörg Schwinger, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Boucher, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, James R. Christian, Christine Delire, Rosie A. Fisher, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Emilie Joetzjer, Michio Kawamiya, Charles D. Koven, John P. Krasting, Rachel M. Law, David M. Lawrence, Andrew Lenton, Keith Lindsay, Julia Pongratz, Thomas Raddatz, Roland Séférian, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry F. Tjiputra, Andy Wiltshire, Tongwen Wu, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Since the preindustrial period, land and ocean have taken up about half of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Comparison of different earth system models with the carbon cycle allows us to assess how carbon uptake by land and ocean differs among models. This yields an estimate of uncertainty in our understanding of how land and ocean respond to increasing atmospheric CO2. This paper summarizes results from two such model intercomparison projects that use an idealized scenario.
Duane Waliser, Peter J. Gleckler, Robert Ferraro, Karl E. Taylor, Sasha Ames, James Biard, Michael G. Bosilovich, Otis Brown, Helene Chepfer, Luca Cinquini, Paul J. Durack, Veronika Eyring, Pierre-Philippe Mathieu, Tsengdar Lee, Simon Pinnock, Gerald L. Potter, Michel Rixen, Roger Saunders, Jörg Schulz, Jean-Noël Thépaut, and Matthias Tuma
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an update to an international research activity whose objective is to facilitate access to satellite and other types of regional and global datasets for evaluating global models used to produce 21st century climate projections.
Charlotte Pascoe, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eric Guilyardi, Martin Juckes, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2149–2167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present a methodology for documenting numerical experiments in the context of an information sharing ecosystem which allows the weather, climate, and earth system modelling community to accurately document and share information about their modelling workflow. We describe how through iteration with a range of stakeholders, we rationalized multiple sources of information and improved the clarity of experimental definitions for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6).
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Paul J. Durack, Bryan Lawrence, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Alison Pamment, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Michel Rixen, and Stéphane Sénési
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the quantities
from CMIP6 simulations that should be archived. The building blocks and structure of the CMIP6 Data Request, which has been constructed to meet these challenges, are described in this paper.
Grzegorz Muszynski, Karthik Kashinath, Vitaliy Kurlin, Michael Wehner, and Prabhat
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 613–628, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-613-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-613-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We present the automated method for recognizing atmospheric rivers in climate data, i.e., climate model output and reanalysis product. The method is based on topological data analysis and machine learning, both of which are powerful tools that the climate science community often does not use. An advantage of the proposed method is that it is free of selection of subjective threshold conditions on a physical variable. This method is also suitable for rapidly analyzing large amounts of data.
Daniel T. McCoy, Paul R. Field, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Brian H. Kahn, Mark D. Zelinka, Chihiro Kodama, Thorsten Mauritsen, Benoit Vanniere, Malcolm Roberts, Pier L. Vidale, David Saint-Martin, Aurore Voldoire, Rein Haarsma, Adrian Hill, Ben Shipway, and Jonathan Wilkinson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 1147–1172, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-1147-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-1147-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The largest single source of uncertainty in the climate sensitivity predicted by global climate models is how much low-altitude clouds change as the climate warms. Models predict that the amount of liquid within and the brightness of low-altitude clouds increase in the extratropics with warming. We show that increased fluxes of moisture into extratropical storms in the midlatitudes explain the majority of the observed trend and the modeled increase in liquid water within these storms.
Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E. Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Paul J. Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sébastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stefan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stockhause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We present recommendations for the global data infrastructure needed to support CMIP scientific design and its future growth and evolution. We follow a dataset-centric design less prone to systemic failure. Scientific publication in the digital age is evolving to make data a primary scientific output, alongside articles. We design toward that future scientific data ecosystem, informed by the need for reproducibility, data provenance, future data technologies, and measures of costs and benefits.
Christine A. Shields, Jonathan J. Rutz, Lai-Yung Leung, F. Martin Ralph, Michael Wehner, Brian Kawzenuk, Juan M. Lora, Elizabeth McClenny, Tashiana Osborne, Ashley E. Payne, Paul Ullrich, Alexander Gershunov, Naomi Goldenson, Bin Guan, Yun Qian, Alexandre M. Ramos, Chandan Sarangi, Scott Sellars, Irina Gorodetskaya, Karthik Kashinath, Vitaliy Kurlin, Kelly Mahoney, Grzegorz Muszynski, Roger Pierce, Aneesh C. Subramanian, Ricardo Tome, Duane Waliser, Daniel Walton, Gary Wick, Anna Wilson, David Lavers, Prabhat, Allison Collow, Harinarayan Krishnan, Gudrun Magnusdottir, and Phu Nguyen
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2455–2474, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
ARTMIP (Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project) is a community effort with the explicit goal of understanding the uncertainties, and the implications of those uncertainties, in atmospheric river science solely due to detection algorithm. ARTMIP strives to quantify these differences and provide guidance on appropriate algorithmic choices for the science question posed. Project goals, experimental design, and preliminary results are provided.
Monika J. Barcikowska, Scott J. Weaver, Frauke Feser, Simone Russo, Frederik Schenk, Dáithí A. Stone, Michael F. Wehner, and Matthias Zahn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 679–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-679-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-679-2018, 2018
Michael Wehner, Dáithí Stone, Dann Mitchell, Hideo Shiogama, Erich Fischer, Lise S. Graff, Viatcheslav V. Kharin, Ludwig Lierhammer, Benjamin Sanderson, and Harinarayan Krishnan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 299–311, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change challenged the scientific community to describe the impacts of stabilizing the global temperature at its 21st Conference of Parties. A specific target of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels had not been seriously considered by the climate modeling community prior to the Paris Agreement. This paper analyzes heat waves in simulations designed for this target. We find there are reductions in extreme temperature compared to a 2 °C target.
Michael F. Wehner, Kevin A. Reed, Burlen Loring, Dáithí Stone, and Harinarayan Krishnan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 187–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-187-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-187-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change invited the scientific community to explore the impacts of a world in which anthropogenic global warming is stabilized at only 1.5 °C above preindustrial average temperatures. We present a projection of future tropical cyclone statistics for both 1.5 and 2.0 °C stabilized warming scenarios using a high-resolution global climate model. We find more frequent and intense tropical cyclones, but a reduction in weaker storms.
Angeline G. Pendergrass, Andrew Conley, and Francis M. Vitt
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 317–324, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We document and validate radiative kernels for the surface and top-of-atmosphere calculated with NCAR's CESM1 climate model. A radiative kernel is the change in radiation in response to a small change in a property of the atmosphere or surface, essentially a partial derivative. They are used to quantify temperature, water vapor, surface albedo, and cloud feedbacks. We made these kernels because few are available for the surface. We also validate the kernels against the expected model responses.
David Hassell, Jonathan Gregory, Jon Blower, Bryan N. Lawrence, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4619–4646, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present a formal data model for version 1.6 of the CF (Climate and Forecast) metadata conventions that provide a description of the physical meaning of geoscientific data and their spatial and temporal properties. We describe the CF conventions and how they lead to our CF data model, and compare it other data models for storing data and metadata. We present cf-python version 2.1: a software implementation of the CF data model capable of manipulating any CF-compliant dataset.
Yoko Tsushima, Florent Brient, Stephen A. Klein, Dimitra Konsta, Christine C. Nam, Xin Qu, Keith D. Williams, Steven C. Sherwood, Kentaroh Suzuki, and Mark D. Zelinka
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4285–4305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4285-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4285-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Cloud feedback is the largest uncertainty associated with estimates of climate sensitivity. Diagnostics have been developed to evaluate cloud processes in climate models. For this understanding to be reflected in better estimates of cloud feedbacks, it is vital to continue to develop such tools and to exploit them fully during the model development process. Code repositories have been created to store and document the programs which will allow climate modellers to compute these diagnostics.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yangyang Xu, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael Wehner, Brian O'Neill, Alexandra Jahn, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Warren G. Strand, Lei Lin, Reto Knutti, and Jean Francois Lamarque
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 827–847, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a set of climate simulations designed to simulate futures in which the Earth's temperature is stabilized at the levels referred to in the 2015 Paris Agreement. We consider the necessary future emissions reductions and the aspects of extreme weather which differ significantly between the 2 and 1.5 °C climate in the simulations.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Michael Wehner, and Reto Knutti
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
How should climate model simulations be combined to produce an overall assessment that reflects both their performance and their interdependencies? This paper presents a strategy for weighting climate model output such that models that are replicated or models that perform poorly in a chosen set of metrics are appropriately weighted. We perform sensitivity tests to show how the method results depend on variables and parameter values.
Daniel Mitchell, Krishna AchutaRao, Myles Allen, Ingo Bethke, Urs Beyerle, Andrew Ciavarella, Piers M. Forster, Jan Fuglestvedt, Nathan Gillett, Karsten Haustein, William Ingram, Trond Iversen, Viatcheslav Kharin, Nicholas Klingaman, Neil Massey, Erich Fischer, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, John Scinocca, Øyvind Seland, Hideo Shiogama, Emily Shuckburgh, Sarah Sparrow, Dáithí Stone, Peter Uhe, David Wallom, Michael Wehner, and Rashyd Zaaboul
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 571–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-571-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-571-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an experimental design to assess impacts of a world that is 1.5 °C warmer than at pre-industrial levels. The design is a new way to approach impacts from the climate community, and aims to answer questions related to the recent Paris Agreement. In particular the paper provides a method for studying extreme events under relatively high mitigation scenarios.
Veronika Eyring, Peter J. Gleckler, Christoph Heinze, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, V. Balaji, Eric Guilyardi, Sylvie Joussaume, Stephan Kindermann, Bryan N. Lawrence, Gerald A. Meehl, Mattia Righi, and Dean N. Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 813–830, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We argue that the CMIP community has reached a critical juncture at which many baseline aspects of model evaluation need to be performed much more efficiently to enable a systematic and rapid performance assessment of the large number of models participating in CMIP, and we announce our intention to implement such a system for CMIP6. At the same time, continuous scientific research is required to develop innovative metrics and diagnostics that help narrowing the spread in climate projections.
George J. Boer, Douglas M. Smith, Christophe Cassou, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ben Kirtman, Yochanan Kushnir, Masahide Kimoto, Gerald A. Meehl, Rym Msadek, Wolfgang A. Mueller, Karl E. Taylor, Francis Zwiers, Michel Rixen, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, and Rosie Eade
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) investigates our ability to skilfully predict climate variations from a year to a decade ahead by means of a series of retrospective forecasts. Quasi-real-time forecasts are also produced for potential users. In addition, the DCPP investigates how perturbations such as volcanoes affect forecasts and, more broadly, what new information can be learned about the mechanisms governing climate variations by means of case studies of past climate behaviour.
Stephen M. Griffies, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Paul J. Durack, Alistair J. Adcroft, V. Balaji, Claus W. Böning, Eric P. Chassignet, Enrique Curchitser, Julie Deshayes, Helge Drange, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Peter J. Gleckler, Jonathan M. Gregory, Helmuth Haak, Robert W. Hallberg, Patrick Heimbach, Helene T. Hewitt, David M. Holland, Tatiana Ilyina, Johann H. Jungclaus, Yoshiki Komuro, John P. Krasting, William G. Large, Simon J. Marsland, Simona Masina, Trevor J. McDougall, A. J. George Nurser, James C. Orr, Anna Pirani, Fangli Qiao, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, Anne Marie Treguier, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Petteri Uotila, Maria Valdivieso, Qiang Wang, Michael Winton, and Stephen G. Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) aims to provide a framework for evaluating, understanding, and improving the ocean and sea-ice components of global climate and earth system models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This document defines OMIP and details a protocol both for simulating global ocean/sea-ice models and for analysing their output.
Veronika Eyring, Sandrine Bony, Gerald A. Meehl, Catherine A. Senior, Bjorn Stevens, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The objective of CMIP is to better understand past, present, and future climate change in a multi-model context. CMIP's increasing importance and scope is a tremendous success story, but the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. In response to these challenges, we have adopted a more federated structure for the sixth phase of CMIP (i.e. CMIP6) and subsequent phases.
Veronika Eyring, Mattia Righi, Axel Lauer, Martin Evaldsson, Sabrina Wenzel, Colin Jones, Alessandro Anav, Oliver Andrews, Irene Cionni, Edouard L. Davin, Clara Deser, Carsten Ehbrecht, Pierre Friedlingstein, Peter Gleckler, Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Stefan Hagemann, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, John Krasting, Dominik Kunert, Richard Levine, Alexander Loew, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Erik Mason, Adam S. Phillips, Simon Read, Catherine Rio, Romain Roehrig, Daniel Senftleben, Andreas Sterl, Lambertus H. van Ulft, Jeremy Walton, Shiyu Wang, and Keith D. Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) in CMIP has been developed that allows for routine comparison of single or multiple models, either against predecessor versions or against observations.
S. Jeon, Prabhat, S. Byna, J. Gu, W. D. Collins, and M. F. Wehner
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 1, 45–57, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-1-45-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-1-45-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the influence of atmospheric rivers on spatial coherence of extreme precipitation under a changing climate. We use our TECA software developed for detecting atmospheric river events and apply statistical techniques based on extreme value theory to characterize the spatial dependence structure between precipitation extremes within the events. The results show that extreme rainfall caused by atmospheric river events is less spatially correlated under the warming scenario.
M.-P. Moine, S. Valcke, B. N. Lawrence, C. Pascoe, R. W. Ford, A. Alias, V. Balaji, P. Bentley, G. Devine, S. A. Callaghan, and E. Guilyardi
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 479–493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-479-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-479-2014, 2014
G. A. Schmidt, J. D. Annan, P. J. Bartlein, B. I. Cook, E. Guilyardi, J. C. Hargreaves, S. P. Harrison, M. Kageyama, A. N. LeGrande, B. Konecky, S. Lovejoy, M. E. Mann, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Risi, D. Thompson, A. Timmermann, L.-B. Tremblay, and P. Yiou
Clim. Past, 10, 221–250, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-221-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-221-2014, 2014
M. S. Johnston, S. Eliasson, P. Eriksson, R. M. Forbes, K. Wyser, and M. D. Zelinka
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12043–12058, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12043-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12043-2013, 2013
S. McGregor, A. Timmermann, M. H. England, O. Elison Timm, and A. T. Wittenberg
Clim. Past, 9, 2269–2284, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-2269-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-2269-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
Advanced climate model evaluation with ESMValTool v2.11.0 using parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing
ICON-HAM-lite 1.0: simulating the Earth system with interactive aerosols at kilometer scales
Process-based modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management at the regional scale: integrating rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration
Reducing time and computing costs in EC-Earth: an automatic load-balancing approach for coupled Earth system models
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
NMH-CS 3.0: a C# programming language and Windows-system-based ecohydrological model derived from Noah-MP
A method for quantifying uncertainty in spatially interpolated meteorological data with application to daily maximum air temperature
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
PaleoSTeHM v1.0: a modern, scalable spatiotemporal hierarchical modeling framework for paleo-environmental data
The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP)
ZEMBA v1.0: an energy and moisture balance climate model to investigate Quaternary climate
Development and evaluation of a new 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled ocean data assimilation system in E3SMv2
TemDeep: a self-supervised framework for temporal downscaling of atmospheric fields at arbitrary time resolutions
The ensemble consistency test: from CESM to MPAS and beyond
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
A Fortran–Python interface for integrating machine learning parameterization into earth system models
ROCKE-3D 2.0: An updated general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
WRF-ELM v1.0: a regional climate model to study land–atmosphere interactions over heterogeneous land use regions
Modeling commercial-scale CO2 storage in the gas hydrate stability zone with PFLOTRAN v6.0
DiuSST: a conceptual model of diurnal warm layers for idealized atmospheric simulations with interactive sea surface temperature
High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) towards CMIP7
T&C-CROP: representing mechanistic crop growth with a terrestrial biosphere model (T&C, v1.5) – model formulation and validation
An updated non-intrusive, multi-scale, and flexible coupling interface in WRF 4.6.0
Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK 0.14.0.11): a Python library for research and teaching
CropSuite v1.0 – a comprehensive open-source crop suitability model considering climate variability for climate impact assessment
ICON ComIn – the ICON Community Interface (ComIn version 0.1.0, with ICON version 2024.01-01)
Using feature importance as an exploratory data analysis tool on Earth system models
A new metrics framework for quantifying and intercomparing atmospheric rivers in observations, reanalyses, and climate models
The real challenges for climate and weather modelling on its way to sustained exascale performance: a case study using ICON (v2.6.6)
COSP-RTTOV-1.0: Flexible radiation diagnostics to enable new science applications in model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design
Impact of spatial resolution on CMIP6-driven Mediterranean climate simulations: a focus on precipitation distribution over Italy
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v2.0) contribution to CMIP7
Statistical summaries for streamed data from climate simulations: One-pass algorithms (v0.6.2)
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
GOSI9: UK Global Ocean and Sea Ice configurations
FACA v1 – Fully Automated Co-Alignment of UAV Point Clouds
Decomposition of skill scores for conditional verification: impact of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phases on the predictability of decadal temperature forecasts
Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Jörg Benke, Ruth Comer, Birgit Hassler, Emma Hogan, Peter Kalverla, Axel Lauer, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Francesco Nattino, Patrick Peglar, Valeriu Predoi, Stef Smeets, Stephen Worsley, Martin Yeo, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4009–4021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models. Here, we describe recent significant improvements of ESMValTool’s computational efficiency including parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing. Evaluations with the enhanced version of ESMValTool are faster, use less computational resources, and can handle input data larger than the available memory.
Philipp Weiss, Ross Herbert, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3877–3894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols strongly influence Earth's climate as they interact with radiation and clouds. New Earth system models run at resolutions of a few kilometers. To simulate the Earth system with interactive aerosols, we developed a new aerosol module. It represents aerosols as an ensemble of lognormal modes with given sizes and compositions. We present a year-long simulation with four modes at a resolution of 5 km. It captures key processes like the formation of dust storms in the Sahara.
Yan Bo, Hao Liang, Tao Li, and Feng Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3799–3817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study proposed an advancing framework for modeling regional rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. The framework integrated a process-based soil-crop model with vital physiological effects, a novel model upscaling method, and the NSGA-II multi-objective optimization algorithm at a parallel computing platform. The framework provides a valuable tool for multi-objective optimization of rice irrigation schemes at a large scale.
Carolina A. Bieri, Francina Dominguez, Gonzalo Miguez-Macho, and Ying Fan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3755–3779, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Access to deep moisture below the Earth's surface is important for vegetation in areas of the Amazon where there is little precipitation for part of the year. Most existing numerical models of the Earth system do not adequately capture where and when deep root water uptake occurs. We address this by adding deep soil layers and a root water uptake feature to an existing model. Out modifications lead to increased dry-month transpiration and improved simulation of the annual transpiration cycle.
Sergi Palomas, Mario C. Acosta, Gladys Utrera, and Etienne Tourigny
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3661–3679, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present an automatic tool that optimizes resource distribution in coupled climate models, enhancing speed and reducing computational costs without requiring expert knowledge. Users can set energy/time criteria or limit resource usage. Tested on various European Community Earth System Model (EC-Earth) configurations and high-performance computing (HPC) platforms, it achieved up to 34 % faster simulations with fewer resources.
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As fire seasons in Brazil become increasingly severe, confidently understanding the factors driving fires is more critical than ever. To address this challenge, we developed FLAME (Fire Landscape Analysis using Maximum Entropy), a new model designed to predict fires and to analyse the spatial influence of both environmental and human factors while accounting for uncertainties. By adapting the model to different regions, we can enhance fire management strategies, making FLAME a powerful tool for protecting landscapes in Brazil and beyond.
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present SURFER v3.0, a simple climate model designed to estimate the impact of CO2 and CH4 emissions on global temperatures, sea levels, and ocean pH. We added new carbon cycle processes and calibrated the model to observations and results from more complex models, enabling use over timescales ranging from decades to millions of years. SURFER v3.0 is fast, transparent, and easy to use, making it an ideal tool for policy assessments and suitable for educational purposes.
Yong-He Liu and Zong-Liang Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3157–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
NMH-CS 3.0 is a C#-based ecohydrological model reconstructed from the WRF-Hydro/Noah-MP model by translating the Fortran code of WRF-Hydro 3.0 and integrating a parallel river routing module. It enables efficient execution on multi-core personal computers. Simulations in the Yellow River basin demonstrate its consistency with WRF-Hydro outputs, providing a reliable alternative to the original Noah-MP model.
Conor T. Doherty, Weile Wang, Hirofumi Hashimoto, and Ian G. Brosnan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3003–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present, analyze, and validate a methodology for quantifying uncertainty in gridded meteorological data products produced by spatial interpolation. In a validation case study using daily maximum near-surface air temperature (Tmax), the method works well and produces predictive distributions with closely matching theoretical versus actual coverage levels. Application of the method reveals that the magnitude of uncertainty in interpolated Tmax varies significantly in both space and time.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Yucheng Lin, Robert E. Kopp, Alexander Reedy, Matteo Turilli, Shantenu Jha, and Erica L. Ashe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2609–2637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
PaleoSTeHM v1.0 is a state-of-the-art framework designed to reconstruct past environmental conditions using geological data. Built on modern machine learning techniques, it efficiently handles the sparse and noisy nature of paleo-records, allowing scientists to make accurate and scalable inferences about past environmental change. By using flexible statistical models, PaleoSTeHM separates different sources of uncertainty, improving the precision of historical climate reconstructions.
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.
Daniel F. J. Gunning, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Emilie Capron, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2479–2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work documents the first results from ZEMBA: an energy balance model of the climate system. The model is a computationally efficient tool designed to study the response of climate to changes in the Earth's orbit. We demonstrate that ZEMBA reproduces many features of the Earth's climate for both the pre-industrial period and the Earth's most recent cold extreme – the Last Glacial Maximum. We intend to develop ZEMBA further and investigate the glacial cycles of the last 2.5 million years.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2443–2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions has significant socio-economic impacts. In this study, we develop and apply a new weakly coupled ocean data assimilation (WCODA) system to a coupled climate model. The WCODA system improves simulations of ocean temperature and salinity across many global regions. This system is meant to advance our understanding of the ocean's role in climate predictability.
Liwen Wang, Qian Li, Qi Lv, Xuan Peng, and Wei You
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2427–2442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our research presents a novel deep learning approach called "TemDeep" for downscaling atmospheric variables at arbitrary time resolutions based on temporal coherence. Results show that our method can accurately recover evolution details superior to other methods, reaching 53.7 % in the restoration rate. Our findings are important for advancing weather forecasting models and enabling more precise and reliable predictions to support disaster preparedness, agriculture, and sustainable development.
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ensemble consistency test (ECT) and its ultrafast variant (UF-ECT) have become powerful tools in the development community for the identification of unwanted changes in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We develop a generalized setup framework to enable easy adoption of the ECT approach for other model developers and communities. This framework specifies test parameters to accurately characterize model variability and balance test sensitivity and computational cost.
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe, calibrate and test the Danish Center for Earth System Science (DCESS) II model, a new, broad, adaptable and fast Earth system model. DCESS II is designed for global simulations over timescales of years to millions of years using limited computer resources like a personal computer. With its flexibility and comprehensive treatment of the global carbon cycle, DCESS II is a useful, computationally friendly tool for simulations of past climates as well as for future Earth system projections.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied carbon–nitrogen coupling in Earth system models by developing a global carbon–nitrogen cycle model (CNit v1.0) within the widely used emulator MAGICC. CNit effectively reproduced the global carbon–nitrogen cycle dynamics observed in complex models. Our results show persistent nitrogen limitations on plant growth (net primary production) from 1850 to 2100, suggesting that nitrogen deficiency may constrain future land carbon sequestration.
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding historical isoprene emission changes is important for predicting future climate, but trends and their controlling factors remain uncertain. This study shows that long-term isoprene trends vary among Earth system models mainly due to partially incorporating CO2 effects and land cover changes rather than to climate. Future models that refine these factors’ effects on isoprene emissions, along with long-term observations, are essential for better understanding plant–climate interactions.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed carbon and nitrogen mass conservation in data from various Earth system models. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies between flux and pool size data, where cumulative imbalances can reach hundreds of gigatons of carbon or nitrogen. These imbalances appear primarily due to missing or inconsistently reported fluxes – especially for land-use and fire emissions. To enhance data quality, we recommend that future climate data protocols address this issue at the reporting stage.
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river runoff, which is crucial for managing water resources and understanding climate impacts, can be challenging. This study introduces a new method using convolutional long short-term memory (ConvLSTM) networks, a machine learning model that processes spatial and temporal data. Focusing on the Baltic Sea region, our model uses weather data as input to predict daily river runoff for 97 rivers.
Tao Zhang, Cyril Morcrette, Meng Zhang, Wuyin Lin, Shaocheng Xie, Ye Liu, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Joana Rodrigues
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1917–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) struggle with the uncertainties associated with parameterizing subgrid physics. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer a solution by learning the important relationships and features from high-resolution models. To incorporate ML parameterizations into ESMs, we develop a Fortran–Python interface that allows for calling Python functions within Fortran-based ESMs. Through two case studies, this interface demonstrates its feasibility, modularity, and effectiveness.
Kostas Tsigaridis, Andrew S. Ackerman, Igor Aleinov, Mark A. Chandler, Thomas L. Clune, Christopher M. Colose, Anthony D. Del Genio, Maxwell Kelley, Nancy Y. Kiang, Anthony Leboissetier, Jan P. Perlwitz, Reto A. Ruedy, Gary L. Russell, Linda E. Sohl, Michael J. Way, and Eric T. Wolf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the second generation of ROCKE-3D, a generalized 3-dimensional model for use in Solar System and exoplanetary simulations of rocky planet climates. We quantify how the different component choices affect model results, and discuss strengths and limitations of using each component, together with how one can select which component to use. ROCKE-3D is publicly available and tutorial sessions are available for the community, greatly facilitating its use by any interested group.
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.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
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.
Michael Nole, Jonah Bartrand, Fawz Naim, and Glenn Hammond
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1413–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Safe carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is likely to be critical for mitigating some of the most severe effects of climate change. We present a simulation framework for modeling CO2 storage beneath the seafloor, where CO2 can form a solid. This can aid in permanent CO2 storage for long periods of time. Our models show what a commercial-scale CO2 injection would look like in a marine environment. We discuss what would need to be considered when designing a subsea CO2 injection.
Reyk Börner, Jan O. Haerter, and Romain Fiévet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1333–1356, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The daily cycle of sea surface temperature (SST) impacts clouds above the ocean and could influence the clustering of thunderstorms linked to extreme rainfall and hurricanes. However, daily SST variability is often poorly represented in modeling studies of how clouds cluster. We present a simple, wind-responsive model of upper-ocean temperature for use in atmospheric simulations. Evaluating the model against observations, we show that it performs significantly better than common slab models.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Jordi Buckley Paules, Simone Fatichi, Bonnie Warring, and Athanasios Paschalis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1287–1305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate enhancements to the process-based T&C model aimed at improving its representation of crop growth and management practices. The updated model, T&C-CROP, enables applications such as analysing the hydrological and carbon storage impacts of land use transitions (e.g. conversions between crops, forests, and pastures) and optimizing irrigation and fertilization strategies in response to climate change.
Sébastien Masson, Swen Jullien, Eric Maisonnave, David Gill, Guillaume Samson, Mathieu Le Corre, and Lionel Renault
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1241–1263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article details a new feature we implemented in the popular regional atmospheric model WRF. This feature allows for data exchange between WRF and any other model (e.g. an ocean model) using the coupling library Ocean–Atmosphere–Sea–Ice–Soil Model Coupling Toolkit (OASIS3-MCT). This coupling interface is designed to be non-intrusive, flexible and modular. It also offers the possibility of taking into account the nested zooms used in WRF or in the models with which it is coupled.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Ulrich G. Wortmann, Tina Tsan, Mahrukh Niazi, Irene A. Ma, Ruben Navasardyan, Magnus-Roland Marun, Bernardo S. Chede, Jingwen Zhong, and Morgan Wolfe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1155–1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a user-friendly Python library that simplifies the creation of models to study earth system processes, such as the carbon cycle and ocean chemistry. It enhances learning by emphasizing concepts over programming and is accessible to students and researchers alike. By automating complex calculations and promoting code clarity, ESBMTK accelerates model development while improving reproducibility and the usability of scientific research.
Florian Zabel, Matthias Knüttel, and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1067–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CropSuite is a new open-source crop suitability model. It provides a GUI and a wide range of options, including a spatial downscaling of climate data. We apply CropSuite to 48 staple and opportunity crops at a 1 km spatial resolution in Africa. We find that climate variability significantly impacts suitable areas but also affects optimal sowing dates and multiple cropping potential. The results provide valuable information for climate impact assessments, adaptation, and land-use planning.
Kerstin Hartung, Bastian Kern, Nils-Arne Dreier, Jörn Geisbüsch, Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Wilton Jaciel Loch, Florian Prill, and Daniel Rieger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1001–1015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (ICON) model system Community Interface (ComIn) library supports connecting third-party modules to the ICON model. Third-party modules can range from simple diagnostic Python scripts to full chemistry models. ComIn offers a low barrier for code extensions to ICON, provides multi-language support (Fortran, C/C++, and Python), and reduces the migration effort in response to new ICON releases. This paper presents the ComIn design principles and a range of use cases.
Daniel Ries, Katherine Goode, Kellie McClernon, and Benjamin Hillman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1041–1065, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning has advanced research in the climate science domain, but its models are difficult to understand. In order to understand the impacts and consequences of climate interventions such as stratospheric aerosol injection, complex models are often necessary. We use a case study to illustrate how we can understand the inner workings of a complex model. We present this technique as an exploratory tool that can be used to quickly discover and assess relationships in complex climate data.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Panagiotis Adamidis, Erik Pfister, Hendryk Bockelmann, Dominik Zobel, Jens-Olaf Beismann, and Marek Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 905–919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we investigated performance indicators of the climate model ICON (ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic) on different compute architectures to answer the question of how to generate high-resolution climate simulations. Evidently, it is not enough to use more computing units of the conventionally used architectures; higher memory throughput is the most promising approach. More potential can be gained from single-node optimization rather than simply increasing the number of compute nodes.
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites have observed earth's emission of infrared radiation since the 1970s. Because infrared wavelengths interact with the atmosphere in distinct ways, these observations contain information about the earth and atmosphere. We present a tool that runs alongside global climate models and produces output that can be directly compared with satellite measurements of infrared radiation. We then use this tool for climate model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design.
Maria Vittoria Struglia, Alessandro Anav, Marta Antonelli, Sandro Calmanti, Franco Catalano, Alessandro Dell'Aquila, Emanuela Pichelli, and Giovanna Pisacane
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of downscaling global climate projections for the Mediterranean and Italian regions aiming to produce high-resolution climate information for the assessment of climate change signals, focusing on extreme events. A general warming is foreseen by the end of century with a mean precipitation reduction accompanied, over Italian Peninsula, by a strong increase in the intensity of extreme precipitation events, particularly relevant for the high emissions scenario during autumn
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.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the skill in simulating the Australian climate of some of the latest generation of regional climate models. We show when and where the models simulate this climate with high skill versus model limitations. We show how new models perform relative to the previous-generation models, assessing how model design features may underlie key performance improvements. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new climate models that simulate Australia’s future climate at regional scales, including at an unprecedented resolution of 4 km for 1950–2100. We describe the model design process used to create these new climate models. We show how the new models perform relative to previous-generation models and compare their climate projections. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide climate model design and the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone, and greenhouse gases alone, among others, are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies, and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Katherine Grayson, Stephan Thober, Aleksander Lacima-Nadolnik, Ehsan Sharifi, Llorenç Lledó, and Francisco Doblas-Reyes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To provide the most accurate climate adaptation information, climate models are being run with finer grid resolution, resulting in larger data output. This paper presents intelligent data reduction algorithms that act on streamed data, a novel way of processing climate data as soon as it is produced. Using these algorithms to calculate statistics, we show that the accuracy provided is well within acceptable bounds while still providing memory savings that bypass unfeasible storage requirements.
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved the calculation of how aerosols in the air interact with radiation in WRF-Chem. The original model used a simplified method, but we developed a more accurate approach. We found that this method significantly changes the properties of the estimated aerosols and their effects on radiation, especially for dust aerosols. It also impacts the simulated weather conditions. Our work highlights the importance of correctly representing aerosol–radiation interactions in models.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
Catherine Guiavarc'h, David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alex Megann, Helene Hewitt, Michael J. Bell, Daley Calvert, Dan Copsey, Bablu Sinha, Sophia Moreton, Pierre Mathiot, and Bo An
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 377–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Ocean and Sea Ice configuration version 9 (GOSI9) is the new UK hierarchy of model configurations based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) and available at three resolutions. It will be used for various applications, e.g. weather forecasting and climate prediction. It improves upon the previous version by reducing global temperature and salinity biases and enhancing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Nick Schüßler, Jewgenij Torizin, Claudia Gunkel, Karsten Schütze, Lars Tiepolt, Dirk Kuhn, Michael Fuchs, and Steffen Prüfer
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-209, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
FACA – Fully Automated Co-Alignment – is a tool designed to generate co-aligned point clouds. We aim to accelerate the application of the co-alignment method and achieve fast results with evolving temporal data and minimal site-specific preparation. FACA offers multiple ways to interact with the workflow, enabling new users to quickly generate initial results through the custom interface, as well as integration into larger automated workflows via the command line. Test datasets are provided.
Andy Richling, Jens Grieger, and Henning W. Rust
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 361–375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The performance of weather and climate prediction systems is variable in time and space. It is of interest how this performance varies in different situations. We provide a decomposition of a skill score (a measure of forecast performance) as a tool for detailed assessment of performance variability to support model development or forecast improvement. The framework is exemplified with decadal forecasts to assess the impact of different ocean states in the North Atlantic on temperature forecast.
Cited articles
Adler, R. F., Sapiano, M. R., Huffman, G. J., Wang, J. J., Gu, G., Bolvin, D., Chiu, L., Schneider, U., Becker, A., Nelkin, E., Xie, P., Ferraro, R., and Shin, D.-B.: The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly analysis (new version 2.3) and a review of 2017 global precipitation. Atmosphere, 9, 138, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9040138, 2018.
Ahn, M.-S., Kim, D. H., Sperber, K. R., Kang, I.-S., Maloney, E. D., Waliser, D. E., and Hendon, H. H.: MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process-oriented diagnosis, Clim. Dynam., 49, 4023–4045, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3558-4, 2017.
Ahn, M.-S., Gleckler, P. J., Lee, J., Pendergrass, A. G., and Jakob, C.: Benchmarking Simulated Precipitation Variability Amplitude across Time Scales, J. Climate, 35, 3173–3196, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-21-0542.1, 2022.
Ahn, M.-S., Ullrich, P. A., Gleckler, P. J., Lee, J., Ordonez, A. C., and Pendergrass, A. G.: Evaluating precipitation distributions at regional scales: a benchmarking framework and application to CMIP5 and 6 models, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023.
Anaconda pcmdi_metrics: https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/pcmdi_metrics, last access: 8 May 2024.
Arcodia, M., Barnes, E. A., Mayer, K., Lee, J., Ordonez, A., and Ahn, M.-S.: Assessing decadal variability of subseasonal forecasts of opportunity using explainable AI, Environ. Res., 2, 045002, https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/aced60, 2023.
Ashfaq, M., Rastogi, D., Kitson, J., Abid, M. A., and Kao, S.-C.: Evaluation of CMIP6 GCMs over the CONUS for downscaling studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036659, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036659, 2022.
Bayr, T., Wengel, C., Latif, M., Dommenget, D., Lübbecke, J., and Park, W.: Error compensation of ENSO atmospheric feedbacks in climate models and its influence on simulated ENSO dynamics, Clim. Dynam., 53, 155–172, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4575-7, 2019.
Biard, J. C. and Kunkel, K. E.: Automated detection of weather fronts using a deep learning neural network, Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 5, 147–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-5-147-2019, 2019.
Bellenger, H., Guilyardi, E., Leloup, J., Lengaigne, M., and Vialard, J.: ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5, Clim. Dynam., 42, 1999–2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1783-z, 2014.
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y., Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., De Lavergne, C., Denvil, S., Deshayes, J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J. L., Dupont, E., Ethé, C., Fairhead, L., Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols, M. A., Gardoll, S., Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J. Y., Guenet, B., Lionel, E. G., Guilyardi, E., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Krinner, G., Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton, T., Luyssaert, S., Madec, G., Madeleine, J.-B., Maignan, F., Marchand, M., Marti, O., Mellul, L., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé, C., Peylin, P., Planton, Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset, C., Sepulchre, P., Sima, A., Swingedouw, D., Thiéblemont, R., Traore, A. K., Vancoppenolle, M., Vial, J., Vialard, J., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR Climate Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms002010, 2020.
Caldwell, P., Mametjanov, A., Tang, Q., Van Roekel, L., Golaz, J.-C., Lin, W., Bader, D. C., Keen, N. D., Feng, Y., Jacob, R., Maltrud, M., Roberts, A., Taylor, M. A., Veneziani, M., Wang, H., Wolfe, J. D., Balaguru, K., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Dong, L., Klein, S. A., Leung, L. R., Li, H., Li, Q., Liu, X., Neale, R., Pinheiro, M. C., Qian, Y., Ullrich, P. A., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, K., and Zhou, T.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: description and results at high resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4095–4146, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001870, 2019.
Chen, H.-C., Jin, F.-F., Zhao, S., Wittenberg, A. T., and Xie, S.: ENSO dynamics in the E3SM-1-0, CESM2, and GFDL-CM4 climate models, J. Climate, 34, 9365–9384, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0355.1, 2021.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, theory, and implementation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001354, 2018.
Covey, C., AchutaRao, K., Cubasch, U., Jones, P., Lambert, S. J., Mann, M., Phillips, T. J., and Taylor, K. E.: An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Global. Planet. Change, 37, 103–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8181(02)00193-5, 2003.
Covey, C., Gleckler, P. J., Doutriaux, C., Williams, D. N., Dai, A., Fasullo, J. T., Trenberth, K. E., and Berg, A.: Metrics for the diurnal cycle of precipitation: toward routine benchmarks for climate models, J. Climate, 29, 4461–4471, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-15-0664.1, 2016.
Crockford, D.: The application/json media type for javascript object notation (json) (No. rfc4627), https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc4627.txt.pdf (last access: 4 April 2024), 2006.
Crockford, D. and Morningstar, C.: The JSON Data Interchange Syntax, ECMA-404, ECMA International, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28181.14560, 2017.
Dalelane, C., Winderlich, K., and Walter, A.: Evaluation of global teleconnections in CMIP6 climate projections using complex networks, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 17–37, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-17-2023, 2023.
Dawson, A.: eofs: A Library for EOF Analysis of Meteorological, Oceanographic, and Climate Data, J. Open Res. Software, 4, e14, https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.122, 2016.
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011.
Deser, C. and Phillips, A. S.: Defining the internal component of Atlantic multidecadal variability in a changing climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095023, 2021.
Doutriaux, C., Nadeau, D., Wittenburg, S., Lipsa, D., Muryanto, L., Chaudhary, A., and Williams, D. N.: CDAT/cdat: CDAT 8.1, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2586088, 2019.
Durack, P. J., Taylor, K. E., Eyring, V., Ames, S., Hoang, T., Nadeau, D., Doutriaux, C., Stockhause, M., and Gleckler, P. J.: Toward standardized data sets for climate model experimentation, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 99, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018eo101751, 2018.
Eaton, B., Gregory, J., Drach, B., Taylor, K., Hankin, S., Blower, J., Caron, J., Signell, R., Bentley, P., Rappa, G., Höck, H., Pamment, A., Juckes, M., Raspaud, M., Horne, R., Whiteaker, T., Blodgett, D., Zender, C., Lee, D., Hassell, D., Snow, A. D., Kölling, T., Allured, D., Jelenak, A., Soerensen, A. M., Gaultier, L., and Herlédan, S.: NetCDF Climate and Forecast (CF) Meta-data Conventions V1.10, http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.10/cf-conventions.html (last access: 4 April 2024), 2022.
ESGF LLNL Metagrid: https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/, last access: 8 May 2024.
Eyring, V., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wenzel, S., Jones, C., Anav, A., Andrews, O., Cionni, I., Davin, E. L., Deser, C., Ehbrecht, C., Friedlingstein, P., Gleckler, P., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Hagemann, S., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Krasting, J., Kunert, D., Levine, R., Loew, A., Mäkelä, J., Martin, G., Mason, E., Phillips, A. S., Read, S., Rio, C., Roehrig, R., Senftleben, D., Sterl, A., van Ulft, L. H., Walton, J., Wang, S., and Williams, K. D.: ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016a.
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, 2016b.
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G., Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A., Hoffman, F. M., Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P., Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E. D., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G., Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D., Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.: Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019.
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020.
Eyring, V., Gillett, N. P., Achuta Rao, K. M., Barimalala, R., Barreiro Parrillo, M., Bellouin, N., Cassou, C., Durack, P. J., Kosaka, Y., McGregor, S. and Min, S., Morgenstern, O., and Sun, Y.: Human Influence on the Climate System, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 105, 423–552, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.005, 2021.
Fasullo, J. T.: Evaluating simulated climate patterns from the CMIP archives using satellite and reanalysis datasets using the Climate Model Assessment Tool (CMATv1), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3627–3642, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3627-2020, 2020.
Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., and Deser, C.: Evaluation of leading modes of climate variability in the CMIP archives, J. Climate, 33, 5527–5545, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-1024.1, 2020.
Ferraro, R., Waliser, D. E., Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Eyring, V.: Evolving OBS4MIPS to support Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, ES131–ES133, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-14-00216.1, 2015.
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S. C., Collins, W., Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., Eyring, V., and Forest, C.: 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.
Fu, W., Moore, J. K., Primeau, F., Collier, N., Ogunro, O. O., Hoffman, F. M., and Randerson, J. T.: Evaluation of ocean biogeochemistry and carbon cycling in CMIP earth system models with the international ocean model benchmarking (IOMB) software System. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 127, e2022JC018965, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JC018965, 2022.
Gates, W. L.: AN AMS continuing series: Global CHANGE–AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 73, 1962–1970, 1992.
Gates, W. L., Henderson-Sellers, A., Boer, G. J., Folland, C. K., Kitoh, A., McAvaney, B. J., Semazzi, F., Smith, N., Weaver, A. J., and Zeng, Q. C.: Climate models – evaluation, Climate Change, 1, 229–284, 1995.
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., Marlais, S. M., and Phillips, T. J.: An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 29–56, 1999.
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D06104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd008972, 2008.
Gleckler, P. J., Ferraro, R., and Waliser, D. E.: Improving use of satellite data in evaluating climate models, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 92, 172, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011eo200005, 2011.
Gleckler, P. J., Doutriaux, C., Durack, P. J., Taylor, K. E., Zhang, Y., Williams, D. N., Mason, E., and Servonnat, J.: A more powerful reality test for climate models, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 97, https://doi.org/10.1029/2016eo051663, 2016.
Golaz, J.-C., Caldwell, P., Van Roekel, L., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q., Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G. W., Anantharaj, V., Asay-Davis, X., Bader, D. C., Baldwin, S., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P., Branstetter, M. L., Brunke, M. A., Brus, S., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Fyke, J., Griffin, B. M., Hannay, C., Harrop, B. E., Hoffman, M. J., Hunke, E., Jacob, R., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N., Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li, H. Y., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Lun, P., Mahajan, S., Maltrud, M., Mametjanov, A., McClean, J. L., McCoy, R., Neale, R., Price, S., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Eyre, J. E. J. R., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D., Roberts, A., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X., Singh, B., Tang, J., Taylor, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Turner, A. K., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N., Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Yoon, J., Zelinka, M. D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and evaluation at standard resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2089–2129, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001603, 2019.
Goldenson, N., Leung, L. R., Mearns, L. O., Pierce, D. W., Reed, K. A., Simpson, I. R., Ullrich, P., Krantz, W., Hall, A., Jones, A., and Rahimi, S.: Use-Inspired, Process-Oriented GCM Selection: Prioritizing Models for Regional Dynamical Downscaling, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 104, E1619–E1629, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0100.1, 2023.
Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A., Fedorov, A., Collins, M., Wang, C., Capotondi, A., Van Oldenborgh, G. J., and Stockdale, T.: Understanding El Niño in ocean–atmosphere general circulation models: Progress and challenges, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 325–340, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2387.1, 2009.
Guilyardi, E., Capotondi, A., Lengaigne, M., Thual, S., and Wittenberg, A. T.: ENSO modelling: history, progress and challenges, in: El Niño in a changing climate, edited by: McPhaden, M. J., Santoso, A., Cai, W., AGU monograph, ISBN 9781119548164, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch9, 2020.
Gutowski Jr., W. J., Giorgi, F., Timbal, B., Frigon, A., Jacob, D., Kang, H.-S., Raghavan, K., Lee, B., Lennard, C., Nikulin, G., O'Rourke, E., Rixen, M., Solman, S., Stephenson, T., and Tangang, F.: WCRP COordinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX): a diagnostic MIP for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4087–4095, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4087-2016, 2016.
Haarsma, R. J., Roberts, M. J., Vidale, P. L., Senior, C. A., Bellucci, A., Bao, Q., Chang, P., Corti, S., Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., von Hardenberg, J., Hazeleger, W., Kodama, C., Koenigk, T., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Luo, J.-J., Mao, J., Mizielinski, M. S., Mizuta, R., Nobre, P., Satoh, M., Scoccimarro, E., Semmler, T., Small, J., and von Storch, J.-S.: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016.
Hannah, W. M., Bradley, A. M., Guba, O., Tang, Q., Golaz, J.-C., and Wolfe, J. D.: Separating physics and dynamics grids for improved computational efficiency in spectral element Earth system models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002419, 2021.
Hassan, K. A., Rönnberg, N., Forsell, C., Cooper, M., and Johansson, J.: A study on 2D and 3D parallel coordinates for pattern identification in temporal multivariate data, in: 2019 23rd International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), 145–150, https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2019.00033, 2019.
Hassell, D., Gregory, J., Blower, J., Lawrence, B. N., and Taylor, K. E.: A data model of the Climate and Forecast metadata conventions (CF-1.6) with a software implementation (cf-python v2.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4619–4646, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, 2017.
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., and Zelinka, M.: Climate simulations: Recognize the “hot model” problem, Nature, 605, 26–29, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2, 2022.
Held, I. M., Guo, H., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J., Shevliakova, E., Winton, M., Zhao, M., Bushuk, M., Wittenberg, A. T., and coauthors: Structure and performance of GFDL's CM4.0 climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 3691–3727, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001829, 2019.
Hendon, H. H., Zhang, C., and Glick, J. D.: Interannual Variation of the Madden–Julian Oscillation during Austral Summer, J. Climate, 12, 2538–2550, 1999.
Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., and coauthors: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.
Hintze, J. L. and Nelson, R. D.: Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism, Am. Stat., 52, 181–184, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480559, 1998.
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J.: xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python, J. Open Res. Software, 5, 10, https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148, 2017.
Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Morrissey, M. M., Bolvin, D. T., Curtis, S., Joyce, R., McGavock, B., and Susskind, J.: Global precipitation at one-degree daily resolution from multisatellite observations, J. Hydrometeorol., 2, 36–50, 2001.
Huffman, G. J., Bolvin, D. T., Braithwaite, D., Hsu, K., Joyce, R., Kidd, C., Nelkin, E. J., Sorooshian, S., Tan, J., and Xie, P.: NASA global precipitation measurement (GPM) integrated multi-satellite retrievals for GPM (IMERG), Algorithm theoretical basis document (ATBD) version, 4, p. 30, 2015.
Inselberg, A.: Multidimensional detective, in: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 100–107, https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.1997.636793, 1997.
Inselberg, A.: Parallel Coordinates: Visualization, Exploration and Classification of High-Dimensional Data, in: Handbook of Data Visualization, edited by: Chen, C., Härdle, W., and Unwin, A., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 643–680, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33037-0_25, 2008.
Inselberg, A.: Parallel Coordinates, in: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Springer, edited by: Liu, L., and Özsu, M. T., Springer, New York, NY, U.S.A., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_262-2, 2016.
Jakob, C., Gettelman, A., and Pitman, A.: The need to operationalize climate modelling, Nat. Clim. Change, 13, 1158–1160, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01849-4, 2023.
Johansson, J. and Forsell, C.: Evaluation of parallel coordinates: Overview, categorization and guidelines for future research, IEEE T. Vis. Comput. G. R., 22, 579–588, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2466992, 2016.
Joyce, R. J., Janowiak, J. E., Arkin, P. A., and Xie, P.: CMORPH: A method that produces global precipitation estimates from passive microwave and infrared data at high spatial and temporal resolution, J. Hydrometeorol., 5, 487–503, 2004.
Kang, D., Kim, D. H., Ahn, M.-S., Neale, R., Lee, J., and Gleckler, P. J.: The role of the mean state on MJO simulation in CESM2 ensemble simulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089824, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089824, 2020.
Kim, D., Sperber, K. R., Stern, W., Waliser, D. E., Kang, I. S., Maloney, E. D., Wang, W., Weickmann, K. M., Benedict, J. J., Khairoutdinov, M., Lee, M.-I., Neale, R., Suarez, M. J., Thayer-Calder, K., and Zhang, G.: Application of MJO simulation diagnostics to climate models, J. Climate, 22, 6413–6436, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli3063.1, 2009.
Kim, H., Caron, J. M., Richter, J. H. and Simpson, I. R.: The lack of QBO-MJO connection in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087295, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087295, 2020.
Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Zelinka, M. D., Pincus, R., Boyle, J., and Gleckler, P. J.: Are climate model simulations of clouds improving? An evaluation using the ISCCP simulator, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1329–1342, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50141, 2013.
Klingaman, N. P., Martin, G. M., and Moise, A.: ASoP (v1.0): a set of methods for analyzing scales of precipitation in general circulation models, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 57–83, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-57-2017, 2017.
Knutti, R.: The end of model democracy? Climatic Change, 102, 395–404, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2, 2010.
Knutti, R., Abramowitz, G., Collins, M., Eyring, V., Gleckler, P. J., Hewitson, B., and Mearns, L.: Good Practice Guidance Paper on Assessing and Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, in: Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Assessing and Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M., IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2010.
Knutti, R., Sedláček, J., Sanderson, B. M., Lorenz, R., Fischer, E. M., and Eyring, V.: A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 1909–1918, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl072012, 2017.
Labe, Z. M. and Barnes, E. A.: Comparison of Climate Model Large Ensembles With Observations in the Arctic Using Simple Neural Networks, Earth Space Sci., 9, e2022EA002348, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EA002348, 2022.
Lambert, S. J. and Boer, G. J.: CMIP1 evaluation and intercomparison of coupled climate models, Clim. Dynam., 17, 83–106, https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00013736, 2001.
Lee, H., Goodman, A., McGibbney, L., Waliser, D. E., Kim, J., Loikith, P. C., Gibson, P. B., and Massoud, E. C.: Regional Climate Model Evaluation System powered by Apache Open Climate Workbench v1.3.0: an enabling tool for facilitating regional climate studies, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4435–4449, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4435-2018, 2018.
Lee, J., Gleckler, P., Sperber, K., Doutriaux, C., and Williams, D.: High-dimensional Data Visualization for Climate Model Intercomparison: Application of the Circular Plot, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Climate Informatics: CI 2018, NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-550+PROC, 12–14, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6BZ64XQ, 2018.
Lee, J., Sperber, K. R., Gleckler, P. J., Bonfils, C., and Taylor, K. E.: Quantifying the agreement between observed and simulated extratropical modes of interannual variability, Clim. Dynam., 52, 4057–4089, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4355-4, 2019a.
Lee, J., Xue, Y., De Sales, F., Diallo, I., Marx, L., Ek, M., Sperber, K. R., and Gleckler, P. J.: Evaluation of multi-decadal UCLA-CFSv2 simulation and impact of interactive atmospheric-ocean feedback on global and regional variability, Clim. Dynam., 52, 3683–3707, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4351-8, 2019b.
Lee, J., Planton, Y., Gleckler, P. J., Sperber, K. R., Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A. T., McPhaden, M. J., and Pallotta, G.: Robust evaluation of ENSO in climate models: How many ensemble members are needed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095041, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095041, 2021a.
Lee, J., Sperber, K. R., Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Bonfils, C.: Benchmarking performance changes in the simulation of extratropical modes of variability across CMIP generations, J. Climate, 34, 6945–6969, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-20-0832.1, 2021b.
Lee, J., Ahn, M.-S., Ordonez, A., Gleckler, P., and Ullrich, P.: PCMDI/pcmdi_metrics_results_archive, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10181201, 2023a.
Lee, J., Gleckler, P., Ordonez, A., Ahn, M.-S., Ullrich, P., Tom, V., Jason, B., Charles, D., Durack, P., Shaheen, Z., Muryanto, L., Painter, J., and Krasting, J.: PCMDI/pcmdi_metrics: PMP Version 3.1.1, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.592790, 2023b.
Leung, L. R., Boos, W. R., Catto, J. L., DeMott, C. A., Martin, G. M., Neelin, J. D., O'Brien, T. A., Xie, S., Feng, Z., Klingaman, N. P. Kuo, Y.-H., Lee, R. W., Martinez-Villalobos, C., Vishnu S., Priestley, M. D. K., Tao, C., and Zhou, Y.: Exploratory precipitation metrics: Spatiotemporal characteristics, process-oriented, and phenomena-based, J. Climate, 35, 3659–3686, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0590.1, 2022.
Lin, J.-P., Kiladis, G. N., Mapes, B. E., Weickmann, K. M., Sperber, K. R., Lin, W., Wheeler, M. C., Schubert, S. D., Del Genio, A. D., Donner, L. J., Emori, S., Guérémy, J.-F., Hourdin, F., Rasch, P. J., Roeckner, E., and Scinocca, J.: Tropical intraseasonal variability in 14 IPCC AR4 climate Models. Part I: Convective Signals, J. Climate, 19, 2665–2690, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3735.1, 2006.
Lin, Y., Huang, X., Liang, Y., Qin, Y., Xu, S., Huang, W., Xu, F., Liu, L., Wang, Y., Peng, Y., and Wang, L.: Community integrated earth system model (CIESM): Description and evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002036, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms002036, 2020.
Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G., Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Seiji, K.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 data product, Int. J. Climatol., 31, 895–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1, 2018.
Longmate, J. M., Risser, M. D., and Feldman, D. R.: Prioritizing the selection of CMIP6 model ensemble members for downscaling projections of CONUS temperature and precipitation, Clim. Dynam., 61, 5171–5197, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06846-z, 2023.
Lu, L., Wang, W. and Tan, Z.: Double-arc parallel coordinates and its axes re-ordering methods, Mobile Networks and Applications, 25, 1376–1391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-019-01455-9, 2020.
Madden, R. A. and Julian, P.: Detection of a 40–50 day oscillation in the zonal wind in the Tropical Pacific, J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 702–708, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028, 1971.
Madden, R. A. and Julian, P.: Description of Global-Scale Circulation Cells in the Tropics with a 40–50 Day Period, J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1109–1123, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029, 1972.
Madden, R. A. and Julian, P.: Observations of the 40–50-Day Tropical Oscillation – A Review, Mon. Weather Rev., 122, 814–837, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122, 1994.
Maloney, E. D., Gettelman, A., Ming, Y., Neelin, J. D., Barrie, D., Mariotti, A., Chen, C., Coleman, D., Kuo, Y. H., Singh, B., Annamalai, H., Berg, A., Booth, J. F., Camargo, S. J., Dai, A., Gonzalez, A., Hafner, J., Jiang, X., Jing, X., Kim, D. H., Kumar, A., Moon, Y., Naud, C. M., Sobel, A. H., Suzuki, K., Wang, F., Wang, J., Wing, A. A., Xu, X., and Zhao, M.: Process-Oriented evaluation of climate and weather forecasting models, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1665–1686, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-18-0042.1, 2019.
Martin, G. M., Klingaman, N. P., and Moise, A. F.: Connecting spatial and temporal scales of tropical precipitation in observations and the MetUM-GA6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 105–126, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-105-2017, 2017.
McAvaney, B. J., Covey, C., Joussaume, S., Kattsov, V., Kitoh, A., Ogana, W., Pitman, A. J., Weaver, A. J., Wood, R. A., and Zhao, Z. C.: Model evaluation. In Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis, Contribution of WG1 to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (TAR) 471-523, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521 80767 0, 2001.
McPhaden, M. J., Zebiak, S. E., and Glantz, M. H.: ENSO as an integrating concept in Earth Science, Science, 314, 1740–1745, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132588, 2006.
McPhaden, M. J., Santoso, A., and Cai, W. (Eds.): El Niño Southern oscillation in a changing climate, American Geophysical Union, USA, 528 pp., ISBN 9781119548126, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164, 2020.
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: Intercomparison makes for a better climate model, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 78, 445, https://doi.org/10.1029/97eo00276, 1997.
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 81, 313–318, 2000.
Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T. L., Latif, M., McAvaney, B. J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A new era in climate change research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-88-9-1383, 2007.
Merrifield, A. L., Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Humphrey, V., and Knutti, R.: Climate model Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread (ClimSIPS v1.0.1) for regional applications, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4715–4747, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4715-2023, 2023.
Neelin, J. D., Krasting, J. P., Radhakrishnan, A., Liptak, J., Jackson, T. J., Ming, Y., Dong, W., Gettelman, A., Coleman, D., Maloney, E. D., Wing, A. A., Kuo, Y. H., Ahmed, F., Ullrich, P. A., Bitz, C. M., Neale, R., Ordonez, A., and Maroon, E.: Process-oriented diagnostics: principles, practice, community development and common standards, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 104, E1452–E1468, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-21-0268.1, 2023.
Nowack, P., Runge, J., Eyring, V., and Haigh, J. D.: Causal networks for climate model evaluation and constrained projections, Nat. Commun., 11, 1415, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15195-y, 2020.
Orbe, C., Van Roekel, L., Adames, Á. F., Dezfuli, A., Fasullo, J. T., Gleckler, P. J., Lee, J., Li, W., Nazarenko, L., Schmidt, G. A., Sperber, K. R., and Zhao, M.: Representation of modes of variability in six U.S. climate models, J. Climate, 33, 7591–7617, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0956.1, 2020.
Ordonez, A. C., Klingaman, N. P., and Martin, G.: Analysing scales of precipitation, OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information), https://doi.org/10.11578/dc.20211029.5, 2021.
Papalexiou, S. M., Rajulapati, C. R., Clark, M. P., and Lehner, F.: Robustness of CMIP6 historical global mean temperature simulations: Trends, long-term persistence, autocorrelation, and distributional shape, Earth's Future, 8, e2020EF001667, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001667, 2020.
Pascoe, C., Lawrence, B. N., Guilyardi, E., Juckes, M., and Taylor, K. E.: Documenting numerical experiments in support of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2149–2167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, 2020.
PCMDI Simulation Summaries: https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/metrics/, last access: 8 May 2024.
Pendergrass, A. G., Gleckler, P. J., Leung, L. R., and Jakob, C.: Benchmarking simulated precipitation in earth system models, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, E814–E816, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0318.1, 2020.
Phillips, A. S., Deser, C., and Fasullo, J. T.: Evaluating modes of variability in climate models, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 95, 453–455, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014eo490002, 2014.
Planton, Y., Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A. T., Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Bayr, T., McGregor, S., McPhaden, M. J., Power, S. B., Roehrig, R., Vialard, J., and Voldoire, A.: Evaluating Climate Models with the CLIVAR 2020 ENSO Metrics Package, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E193–E217, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0337.1, 2021.
Planton, Y. Y., Lee, J., Wittenberg, A. T. Gleckler, P. J., Guilyardi, E., McGregor, S., and McPhaden, M. J.: Estimating uncertainty in simulated ENSO statistics, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., ESS Open Archive [preprint], https://doi.org10.22541/essoar.170196744.48068128/v1, 2023.
PMP Installation: http://pcmdi.github.io/pcmdi_metrics/install.html, last access: 8 May 2024.
Potter, G. L., Bader, D. C., Riches, M., Bamzai, A. and Joseph, R.: Celebrating two decades of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 629–631, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3018.1, 2011.
Qin, Y., Zelinka, M. D., and Klein, S. A.: On the Correspondence Between Atmosphere-Only and Coupled Simulations for Radiative Feedbacks and Forcing From CO2, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035460, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035460, 2022.
Randall, D. A., Wood, R. A., Bony, S., Colman, R., Fichefet, T., Fyfe, J., Kattsov, V., Pitman, A., Shukla, J., Srinivasan, J., and Stouffer, R. J.: Climate models and their evaluation, in: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (FAR), Cambridge University Press, 589–662, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1, 2007.
Rasch, P. J., Xie, S., Ma, P.-L., Lin, W., Wang, H., Tang, Q., Burrows, S. M., Caldwell, P., Zhang, K., Easter, R. C., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Singh, B., Wan, H., Golaz, J.-C., Harrop, B. E., Roesler, E. L., Bacmeister, J. T., Larson, V. E., Evans, K. J., Qian, Y., Taylor, M. A., Leung, L. R., Zhang, Y., Brent, L., Branstetter, M. L., Hannay, C., Mahajan, S., Mametjanov, A., Neale, R., Richter, J. H., Yoon, J.-H., Zender, C. S., Bader, D. C., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Jacob, R., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Liu, X., Salinger, A. G., Shrivastava, M., and Yang, Y.: An overview of the atmospheric component of the Energy Exascale Earth System model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2377–2411, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001629, 2019.
Reed, K. A., Goldenson, N., Grotjahn, R., Gutowski, W. J., Jagannathan, K., Jones, A. D., Leung, L. R., McGinnis, S. A., Pryor, S. C., Srivastava, A. K., Ullrich, P. A., and Zarzycki, C. M.: Metrics as tools for bridging climate science and applications, WIREs Climate Change, 13, e799, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.799, 2022.
Reichler, T. and Kim, J.: How well do coupled models simulate today's climate?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 303–312, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-89-3-303, 2008.
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020.
Sanderson, B. M. and Wehner, M. F.: Weighting strategy for the Fourth National Climate Assessment, in: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I, edited by: Wuebbles, D. J., Fahey, D. W., Hibbard, K. A., Dokken, D. J., Stewart, B. C., and Maycock, T. K., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 436–442, https://doi.org/10.7930/J06T0JS3, 2017.
Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M., and Knutti, R.: Skill and independence weighting for multi-model assessments, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017.
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G. C., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z., Von Der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K., and Zelinka, M. D.: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019rg000678, 2020.
Singh, R., and AchutaRao, K.: Sensitivity of future climate change and uncertainty over India to performance-based model weighting, Climatic Change, 160, 385–406, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02643-y, 2020.
Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W., and Bronaugh, D.: Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1716–1733, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50203, 2013.
Sperber, K. R.: Madden-Julian variability in NCAR CAM2.0 and CCSM2.0, Clim. Dynam., 23, 259–278, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-004-0447-4, 2004.
Sperber, K. R. and Annamalai, H.: The use of fractional accumulated precipitation for the evaluation of the annual cycle of monsoons, Clim. Dynam., 43, 3219–3244, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2099-3, 2014.
Sperber, K. R., Annamalai, H., Kang, I.-S., Kitoh, A., Moise, A., Turner, A., Wang, B., and Zhou, T.: The Asian summer monsoon: an intercomparison of CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 simulation of the late 20th century, Clim. Dynam., 41, 2711–2744, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1607-6, 2013.
Sperber, K. R., Gualdi, S., Legutke, S., and Gayler, V.: The Madden–Julian oscillation in ECHAM4 coupled and uncoupled general circulation models, Clim. Dynam., 25, 117–140, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0026-3, 2005.
Srivastava, A., Grotjahn, R., and Ullrich, P. A.: Evaluation of historical CMIP6 model simulations of extreme precipitation over contiguous US regions, Weather Climate Extremes, 29, 100268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100268, 2020.
Steed, C. A., Shipman, G., Thornton, P., Ricciuto, D., Erickson, D. and Branstetter, M.: Practical application of parallel coordinates for climate model analysis, Procedia Comput. Sci., 9, 877-886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.04.094, 2012.
Stevens, B., Satoh, M., Auger, L., Biercamp, J., Bretherton, C. S., Chen, X., Düben, P., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Klocke, D., Kodama, C., Kornblueh, L., Lin, S.-J., Neumann, P., Putman, W. M., Röber, N., Shibuya, R., Vanniere, B., Vidale, P. L., Wedi, N., and Zhou, L.: DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains, Prog. Earth Planet. Sci., 6, 61, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-019-0304-z, 2019.
Stoner, A. M. K., Hayhoe, K., and Wuebbles, D. J.: Assessing general circulation model simulations of atmospheric teleconnection patterns, J. Climate, 22, 4348–4372, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli2577.1, 2009.
Sung, H. M., Kim, J., Shim, S., Seo, J., Kwon, S.-H., Sun, M.-A., Moon, H.-J., Lee, J., Lim, Y. C., Boo, K.-O., Kim, Y., Lee, J., Lee, J., Kim, J.-S., Marzin, C., and Byun, Y.-H.: Climate change projection in the Twenty-First Century simulated by NIMS-KMA CMIP6 model based on new GHGs concentration pathways, Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 851–862, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-021-00225-6, 2021.
Tang, Q., Prather, M. J., Hsu, J., Ruiz, D. J., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Xie, S., and Golaz, J.-C.: Evaluation of the interactive stratospheric ozone (O3v2) module in the E3SM version 1 Earth system model, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1219–1236, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1219-2021, 2021.
Tang, S., Fast, J. D., Zhang, K., Hardin, J. C., Varble, A. C., Shilling, J. E., Mei, F., Zawadowicz, M. A., and Ma, P.-L.: Earth System Model Aerosol–Cloud Diagnostics (ESMAC Diags) package, version 1: assessing E3SM aerosol predictions using aircraft, ship, and surface measurements, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4055–4076, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4055-2022, 2022.
Tang, S., Varble, A. C., Fast, J. D., Zhang, K., Wu, P., Dong, X., Mei, F., Pekour, M., Hardin, J. C., and Ma, P.-L.: Earth System Model Aerosol–Cloud Diagnostics (ESMAC Diags) package, version 2: assessing aerosols, clouds, and aerosol–cloud interactions via field campaign and long-term observations, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6355–6376, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6355-2023, 2023.
Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183–7192, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900719, 2001.
Taylor, K. E.: Truly conserving with conservative remapping methods, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 415–430, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, 2024.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1, 2012.
Teixeira, J., Waliser, D. E., Ferraro, R., Gleckler, P. J., Lee, T., and Potter, G. L.: Satellite observations for CMIP5: The Genesis of OBS4MIPs, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 1329–1334, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-12-00204.1, 2014.
Tian, B. and Dong, X.: The Double-ITCZ Bias in CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 Models Based on Annual Mean Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087232, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087232, 2020.
Ullrich, P. A. and Zarzycki, C. M.: TempestExtremes: a framework for scale-insensitive pointwise feature tracking on unstructured grids, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1069–1090, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1069-2017, 2017.
Ullrich, P. A., Zarzycki, C. M., McClenny, E. E., Pinheiro, M. C., Stansfield, A. M., and Reed, K. A.: TempestExtremes v2.1: a community framework for feature detection, tracking, and analysis in large datasets, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5023–5048, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5023-2021, 2021.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Benchmarking Simulated Precipitation in Earth System Models Workshop Report, DOE/SC-0203, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program. Germantown, Maryland, USA, 2020.
Vo, T., Po-Chedley, P., Boutte, J., Zhang, C., Lee, J., Gleckler, P., Durack, P., Taylor, K., and Golaz, J.-C.: Xarray Climate Data Analysis Tools (xCDAT): A Python Package for Simple and Robust Analysis of Climate Data, The 103rd AMS Annual Meeting, Abstract, 8–12 January, 2023, in Denver, Colorado, 11.3, 412648, 2023.
Waliser, D., Gleckler, P. J., Ferraro, R., Taylor, K. E., Ames, S., Biard, J., Bosilovich, M. G., Brown, O., Chepfer, H., Cinquini, L., Durack, P. J., Eyring, V., Mathieu, P.-P., Lee, T., Pinnock, S., Potter, G. L., Rixen, M., Saunders, R., Schulz, J., Thépaut, J.-N., and Tuma, M.: Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020.
Waliser, D. E., Sperber, K. R., Hendon, H. H., Kim, D., Maloney, E. D., Wheeler, M. C., Weickmann, K. M., Zhang, C., Donner, L. J., Gottschalck, J., Higgins, W., Kang, I. S., Legler, D. M., Moncrieff, M. W., Schubert, S. D., Stern, W., Vitart, F., Wang, B., Wang, W., and Woolnough, S. J.: MJO Simulation Diagnostics, J. Climate, 22, 3006–3030, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2731.1, 2009.
Wang, J., Liu, X., Shen, H. W., and Lin, G.: Multi-resolution climate ensemble parameter analysis with nested parallel coordinates plots, IEEE T. Vis. Comput. G. R., 23, 81–90, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598830, 2017.
Wehner, M., Gleckler, P. J., and Lee, J.: Characterization of long period return values of extreme daily temperature and precipitation in the CMIP6 models: Part 1, model evaluation, Weather Climate Extremes, 30, 100283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100283, 2020.
Wehner, M., Lee, J., Risser, M. D., Ullrich, P. A., Gleckler, P. J., and Collins, W. D.: Evaluation of extreme sub-daily precipitation in high-resolution global climate model simulations, Philos. T. R. Soc. A., 379, 20190545, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0545, 2021.
Williams, D. N.: Visualization and analysis tools for ultrascale climate data, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 95, 377–378, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014eo420002, 2014.
Williams, D. N., Doutriaux, C., Drach, R., and McCoy, R.: The Flexible Climate Data Analysis Tools (CDAT) for Multi-model Climate Simulation Data, IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 254–261, https://doi.org/10.1109/icdmw.2009.64, 2009.
Williams, D. N., Balaji, V., Cinquini, L., Denvil, S., Duffy, D. Q., Evans, B., Ferraro, R., Hansen, R., Lautenschlager, M., and Trenham, C.: A global repository for Planet-Sized experiments and observations, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 803–816, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-15-00132.1, 2016.
Wong, P. C., Shen, H. W., Leung, R., Hagos, S., Lee, T. Y., Tong, X. and Lu, K.: Visual analytics of large-scale climate model data, in: 2014 IEEE 4th Symposium on Large Data Analysis and Visualization (LDAV), 85–92, https://doi.org/10.1109/LDAV.2014.7013208, 2014.
Xie, P., Joyce, R., Wu, S., Yoo, S. H., Yarosh, Y., Sun, F. and Lin, R.: Reprocessed, bias-corrected CMORPH global high-resolution precipitation estimates from 1998, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 1617–1641, 2017.
Xue, Z. and Ullrich, P. A.: A Comprehensive Intermediate-Term Drought Evaluation System and Evaluation of Climate Data Products over the Conterminous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 22, 2311–2337, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-20-0314.1, 2021.
Young, A. H., Knapp, K. R., Inamdar, A., Hankins, W., and Rossow, W. B.: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project H-Series climate data record product, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 583–593, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-583-2018, 2018.
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M., Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020.
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Qin, Y., and Myers, T. A.: Evaluating climate models' cloud feedbacks against expert judgment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035198, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035198, 2022.
Zhang, C. and Hendon, H. H.: Propagating and standing components of the intraseasonal oscillation in tropical convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 741–752, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054, 1997.
Zhang, C., Xie, S., Klein, S. A., Ma, H. Y., Tang, S., Van Weverberg, K., Morcrette, C. J., and Petch, J.: CAUSES: Diagnosis of the summertime warm bias in CMIP5 climate models at the ARM Southern Great Plains site. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 2968–2992, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027200, 2018.
Zhang, C., Xie, S., Tao, C., Tang, S., Emmenegger, T., Neelin, J. D., Schiro, K. A., Lin, W., and Shaheen, Z.: The ARM data-oriented metrics and diagnostics package for climate models: A new tool for evaluating climate models with field data, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, E1619-E1627, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0282.1, 2020.
Zhang, C., Golaz, J.-C., Forsyth, R., Vo, T., Xie, S., Shaheen, Z., Potter, G. L., Asay-Davis, X. S., Zender, C. S., Lin, W., Chen, C.-C., Terai, C. R., Mahajan, S., Zhou, T., Balaguru, K., Tang, Q., Tao, C., Zhang, Y., Emmenegger, T., Burrows, S., and Ullrich, P. A.: The E3SM Diagnostics Package (E3SM Diags v2.7): a Python-based diagnostics package for Earth system model evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9031–9056, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, 2022.
Zhao, B., Lin, P., Hu, A., Liu, H., Ding, M., Yu, Z., and Yu, Y.: Uncertainty in Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation derived from different observed datasets and their possible causes, Front. Mar. Sci., 9, 1007646, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1007646, 2022.
Zhao, M., Golaz, J.-C., Held, I. M., Guo, H., Balaji, V., Benson, R., Chen, J. H., Chen, X., Donner, L. J., Dunne, J., Dunne, K. A., Durachta, J., Fan, S.-M., Freidenreich, S. M., Garner, S. T., Ginoux, P., Harris, L., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J. P., Langenhorst, A. R., Zhi, L., Lin, P., Lin, S. J., Malyshev, S., Mason, E., Milly, P. C. D., Ming, Y., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Paynter, D., Phillipps, P. J., Radhakrishnan, A., Ramaswamy, V., Robinson, T., Schwarzkopf, D., Seman, C. J., Shevliakova, E., Shen, Z., Shin, H. H., Silvers, L. G., Wilson, J. R., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Wyman, B., and Xiang, B.: The GFDL Global Atmosphere and Land Model AM4.0/LM4.0: 1. Simulation characteristics with prescribed SSTS, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 691–734, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ms001208, 2018.
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a...
