Articles | Volume 17, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-975-2024
© 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-17-975-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
06 Feb 2024
Development and technical paper |
| 06 Feb 2024
| 06 Feb 2024
The utility of simulated ocean chlorophyll observations: a case study with the Chlorophyll Observation Simulator Package (version 1) in CESMv2.2
Genevieve L. Clow
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Nicole S. Lovenduski
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Michael N. Levy
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Keith Lindsay
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Jennifer E. Kay
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Skyler Kern, Mary E. McGuinn, Katherine M. Smith, Nadia Pinardi, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Nicole S. Lovenduski, and Peter E. Hamlington
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3795, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3795, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The parameters that control a model's behavior determine its ability to represent a system. In this work, multiple cases test how to estimate the parameters of a model with components corresponding to both the physics and the chemical and biological processes (i.e. the biogeochemistry) of the ocean. While demonstrating how to approach this problem type, the results show estimating both sets of parameters simultaneously is better than estimating the physics then the biogeochemistry separately.
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4935–4950, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4935-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4935-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites have observed Earth's emissions of infrared radiation since the 1970s. Because infrared wavelengths interact with the atmosphere in distinct ways, these observations contain information about Earth and the atmosphere. We present a tool that runs within Earth system 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.
Malik J. Jordan, Emily F. Klee, Peter E. Hamlington, Nicole S. Lovenduski, and Kyle E. Niemeyer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2901, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2901, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a method to simplify complex ocean biogeochemical models so they can run faster in computer simulations without losing important details. By adapting techniques from combustion science, we created smaller versions of a large ocean model that still accurately represent key changes in ocean biology and chemistry. This work helps make detailed ocean simulations more efficient, supporting better understanding of ocean health and climate.
Joshua Coupe, Nicole S. Lovenduski, Luise S. Gleason, Michael N. Levy, Kristen Krumhardt, Keith Lindsay, Charles Bardeen, Clay Tabor, Cheryl Harrison, Kenneth G. MacLeod, Siddhartha Mitra, and Julio Sepúlveda
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-94, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-94, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a new feature in the atmosphere and ocean components of the Community Earth System Model version 2. We have implemented ultraviolet (UV) radiation inhibition of photosynthesis of four marine phytoplankton functional groups represented in the Marine Biogeochemistry Library. The new feature is tested with varying levels of UV radiation. The new feature will enable an analysis of an asteroid impact’s effect on the ozone layer and how that affects the base of the marine food web.
Cara Nissen, Nicole S. Lovenduski, Mathew Maltrud, Alison R. Gray, Yohei Takano, Kristen Falcinelli, Jade Sauvé, and Katherine Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6415–6435, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Autonomous profiling floats have provided unprecedented observational coverage of the global ocean, but uncertainties remain about whether their sampling frequency and density capture the true spatiotemporal variability of physical, biogeochemical, and biological properties. Here, we present the novel synthetic biogeochemical float capabilities of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 and demonstrate their utility as a test bed to address these uncertainties.
Ash Gilbert, Jennifer E. Kay, and Penny Rowe
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2043, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2043, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a novel methodology for assessing whether a new physics parameterization should be added to a climate model based on its effect across a hierarchy of model complexities and time and spatial scales. Our study used this model hierarchy to evaluate the effect of a new cloud radiation parameterization on longwave radiation and determined that the parameterization should be added to climate radiation models, but its effect is not large enough to be a priority.
Megan Thompson-Munson, Jennifer E. Kay, and Bradley R. Markle
The Cryosphere, 18, 3333–3350, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3333-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3333-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The upper layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet are absorbent and can store meltwater that would otherwise flow into the ocean and raise sea level. The amount of meltwater that the ice sheet can store changes when the air temperature changes. We use a model to show that warming and cooling have opposite but unequal effects. Warming has a stronger effect than cooling, which highlights the vulnerability of the Greenland Ice Sheet to modern climate change.
Leah Bertrand, Jennifer E. Kay, John Haynes, and Gijs de Boer
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1301–1316, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1301-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1301-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The vertical structure of clouds has a major impact on global energy flows, air circulation, and the hydrologic cycle. Two satellite instruments, CloudSat radar and CALIPSO lidar, have taken complementary measurements of cloud vertical structure for over a decade. Here, we present the 3S-GEOPROF-COMB product, a globally gridded satellite data product combining CloudSat and CALIPSO observations of cloud vertical structure.
Marika M. Holland, Cecile Hannay, John Fasullo, Alexandra Jahn, Jennifer E. Kay, Michael Mills, Isla R. Simpson, William Wieder, Peter Lawrence, Erik Kluzek, and David Bailey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1585–1602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate evolves in response to changing forcings, as prescribed in simulations. Models and forcings are updated over time to reflect new understanding. This makes it difficult to attribute simulation differences to either model or forcing changes. Here we present new simulations which enable the separation of model structure and forcing influence between two widely used simulation sets. Results indicate a strong influence of aerosol emission uncertainty on historical climate.
Skyler Kern, Mary E. McGuinn, Katherine M. Smith, Nadia Pinardi, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Nicole S. Lovenduski, and Peter E. Hamlington
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 621–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-621-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-621-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Computational models are used to simulate the behavior of marine ecosystems. The models often have unknown parameters that need to be calibrated to accurately represent observational data. Here, we propose a novel approach to simultaneously determine a large set of parameters for a one-dimensional model of a marine ecosystem in the surface ocean at two contrasting sites. By utilizing global and local optimization techniques, we estimate many parameters in a computationally efficient manner.
Geneviève W. Elsworth, Nicole S. Lovenduski, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Thomas M. Marchitto, and Sarah Schlunegger
Biogeosciences, 20, 4477–4490, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4477-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-4477-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic climate change will influence marine phytoplankton over the coming century. Here, we quantify the influence of anthropogenic climate change on marine phytoplankton internal variability using an Earth system model ensemble and identify a decline in global phytoplankton biomass variance with warming. Our results suggest that climate mitigation efforts that account for marine phytoplankton changes should also consider changes in phytoplankton variance driven by anthropogenic warming.
István Dunkl, Nicole Lovenduski, Alessio Collalti, Vivek K. Arora, Tatiana Ilyina, and Victor Brovkin
Biogeosciences, 20, 3523–3538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3523-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Despite differences in the reproduction of gross primary productivity (GPP) by Earth system models (ESMs), ESMs have similar predictability of the global carbon cycle. We found that, although GPP variability originates from different regions and is driven by different climatic variables across the ESMs, the ESMs rely on the same mechanisms to predict their own GPP. This shows that the predictability of the carbon cycle is limited by our understanding of variability rather than predictability.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Stephen G. Yeager, Nan Rosenbloom, Anne A. Glanville, Xian Wu, Isla Simpson, Hui Li, Maria J. Molina, Kristen Krumhardt, Samuel Mogen, Keith Lindsay, Danica Lombardozzi, Will Wieder, Who M. Kim, Jadwiga H. Richter, Matthew Long, Gokhan Danabasoglu, David Bailey, Marika Holland, Nicole Lovenduski, Warren G. Strand, and Teagan King
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system changes over a range of time and space scales, and some of these changes are predictable in advance. Short-term weather forecasts are most familiar, but recent work has shown that it is possible to generate useful predictions several seasons or even a decade in advance. This study focuses on predictions over intermediate timescales (up to 24 months in advance) and shows that there is promising potential to forecast a variety of changes in the natural environment.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Cited articles
Andreae, M. O. and Crutzen, P. J.: Atmospheric Aerosols: Biogeochemical Sources and Role in Atmospheric Chemistry, Science, 276, 1052–1058, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1052, 1997. a
Beaulieu, C., Henson, S. A., Sarmiento, J. L., Dunne, J. P., Doney, S. C., Rykaczewski, R. R., and Bopp, L.: Factors challenging our ability to detect long-term trends in ocean chlorophyll, Biogeosciences, 10, 2711–2724, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-2711-2013, 2013. a
Behrenfeld, M. J. and Falkowski, P. G.: Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration, Limnol. Oceanogr., 42, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1997.42.1.0001, 1997. a
Behrenfeld, M. J., O'Malley, R. T., Boss, E. S., Westberry, T. K., Graff, J. R., Halsey, K. H., Milligan, A. J., Siegel, D. A., and Brown, M. B.: Revaluating ocean warming impacts on global phytoplankton, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 323–330, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2838, 2016. a
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1, 2011. a, b
Bogenschutz, P. A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Larson, V. E., Craig, C., and Schanen, D. P.: Higher-Order Turbulence Closure and Its Impact on Climate Simulations in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 26, 9655–9676, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00075.1, 2013. a
Boyce, D. G., Dowd, M., Lewis, M. R., and Worm, B.: Estimating global chlorophyll changes over the past century, Prog. Oceanogr., 122, 163–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.01.004, 2014. a
Chassot, E., Bonhommeau, S., Dulvy, N. K., Mélin, F., Watson, R., Gascuel, D., and Le Pape, O.: Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches, Ecol. Lett., 13, 495–505, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01443.x, 2010. a
Clow, G. L., Lovenduski, N. S., Levy, M. N., Lindsay, K., and Kay, J. E.: ChlOSPv1.0 output from 30 year pre-industrial simulation of CESMv2.2, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8097543, 2023. a
Clow, G. and CESM Team: CESM: ChlOSP Initial Release (v1.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8071063, 2023. a
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f
Dutkiewicz, S., Hickman, A. E., and Jahn, O.: Modelling ocean-colour-derived chlorophyll a, Biogeosciences, 15, 613–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-613-2018, 2018. a, b
Fay, A. R. and McKinley, G. A.: Global open-ocean biomes: mean and temporal variability, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 6, 273–284, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-6-273-2014, 2014. a
Fay, A. R. and McKinley, G. A.: Correlations of surface ocean pCO2 to satellite chlorophyll on monthly to interannual timescales, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 31, 436–455, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005563, 2017. a
Geider, R. J., Maclntyre, H. L., and Kana, T. M.: A dynamic regulatory model of phytoplanktonic acclimation to light, nutrients, and temperature, Limnol. Oceanogr., 43, 679–694, https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1998.43.4.0679, 1998. a
Gentemann, C. L., Wentz, F. J., Brewer, M., Hilburn, K., and Smith, D.: Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of the Ocean: An Overview, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 13–33, ISBN 978-90-481-8681-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8681-5_2, 2010. a
Gettelman, A. and Morrison, H.: Advanced Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics for Global Models. Part I: Off-Line Tests and Comparison with Other Schemes, J. Climate, 28, 1268–1287, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00102.1, 2015. a
Golaz, J.-C., Larson, V. E., and Cotton, W. R.: A PDF-Based Model for Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Method and Model Description, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 3540–3551, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<3540:APBMFB>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a
Gregg, W. W. and Casey, N. W.: Global and regional evaluation of the SeaWiFS chlorophyll data set, Remote Sens. Environ., 93, 463–479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.12.012, 2004. a
Gregg, W. W. and Rousseaux, C. S.: Decadal trends in global pelagic ocean chlorophyll: A new assessment integrating multiple satellites, in situ data, and models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 5921–5933, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010158, 2014. a
Hammond, M. L., Beaulieu, C., Sahu, S. K., and Henson, S. A.: Assessing trends and uncertainties in satellite-era ocean chlorophyll using space-time modeling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 31, 1103–1117, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005600, 2017. a
Hu, C., Lee, Z., and Franz, B.: Chlorophyll-a algorithms for oligotrophic oceans: A novel approach based on three-band reflectance difference, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007395, 2012. a
Jouini, M., Levy, M., Crépon, M., and Thiria, S.: Reconstruction of satellite chlorophyll images under heavy cloud coverage using a neural classification method, Remote Sens. Environ., 131, 232–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.11.025, 2013. a
Kay, J. E., Hillman, B. R., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Medeiros, B., Pincus, R., Gettelman, A., Eaton, B., Boyle, J., Marchand, R., and Ackerman, T. P.: Exposing Global Cloud Biases in the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) Using Satellite Observations and Their Corresponding Instrument Simulators, J. Climate, 25, 5190–5207, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00469.1, 2012. a, b
Kay, J. E., DeRepentigny, P., Holland, M. M., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Deser, C., Jahn, A., Singh, H., Smith, M. M., Webster, M. A., Edwards, J., Lee, S.-S., Rodgers, K. B., and Rosenbloom, N.: Less Surface Sea Ice Melt in the CESM2 Improves Arctic Sea Ice Simulation With Minimal Non-Polar Climate Impacts, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002679, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002679, 2022. a
King, M. D., Platnick, S., Menzel, W. P., Ackerman, S. A., and Hubanks, P. A.: Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Clouds Observed by MODIS Onboard the Terra and Aqua Satellites, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 3826–3852, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2227333, 2013. a
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. a
Krasnopolsky, V., Nadiga, S., Mehra, A., Bayler, E., and Behringer, D.: Neural Networks Technique for Filling Gaps in Satellite Measurements: Application to Ocean Color Observations, Comput. Intel. Neurosc., 2016, 6156513, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6156513, 2016. a
Krumhardt, K., Lovenduski, N., Long, M., and Lindsay, K.: Avoidable impacts of ocean warming on marine primary production: Insights from the CESM ensembles, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 31, 114–133, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005528, 2017. a
Kwiatkowski, L., Torres, O., Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Chamberlain, M., Christian, J. R., Dunne, J. P., Gehlen, M., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Lenton, A., Li, H., Lovenduski, N. S., Orr, J. C., Palmieri, J., Santana-Falcón, Y., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Stock, C. A., Tagliabue, A., Takano, Y., Tjiputra, J., Toyama, K., Tsujino, H., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Yool, A., and Ziehn, T.: Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections, Biogeosciences, 17, 3439–3470, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020, 2020. a, b
Liu, X. and Wang, M.: Gap Filling of Missing Data for VIIRS Global Ocean Color Products Using the DINEOF Method, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 56, 4464–4476, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2820423, 2018. a
Long, M. C., Lindsay, K., and Holland, M. M.: Modeling photosynthesis in sea ice-covered waters, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 7, 1189–1206, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000436, 2015. a
Long, M. C., Moore, J. K., Lindsay, K., Levy, M., Doney, S. C., Luo, J. Y., Krumhardt, K. M., Letscher, R. T., Grover, M., and Sylvester, Z. T.: Simulations With the Marine Biogeochemistry Library (MARBL), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2021MS002647, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002647, 2021. a, b, c
Marinov, I., Doney, S. C., and Lima, I. D.: Response of ocean phytoplankton community structure to climate change over the 21st century: partitioning the effects of nutrients, temperature and light, Biogeosciences, 7, 3941–3959, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-3941-2010, 2010. a
McClain, C. R.: A Decade of Satellite Ocean Color Observations, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci., 1, 19–42, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163650, 2009. a
Mikelsons, K. and Wang, M.: Optimal satellite orbit configuration for global ocean color product coverage, Opt. Express, 27, A445–A457, https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.00A445, 2019. a, b
NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group: Aqua MODIS Level 3 Mapped Chlorophyll Data, Version R2022.0 [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/AQUA/MODIS/L3M/CHL/2022, 2022. a, b
O'Malley, R. T., Behrenfeld, M. J., Westberry, T. K., Milligan, A. J., Shang, S., and Yan, J.: Geostationary satellite observations of dynamic phytoplankton photophysiology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 5052–5059, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060246, 2014. a
O'Reilly, J. E. and Werdell, P. J.: Chlorophyll algorithms for ocean color sensors – OC4, OC5 & OC6, Remote Sens. Environ., 229, 32–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.04.021, 2019. a
O'Reilly, J. E., Maritorena, S., Mitchell, B. G., Siegel, D. A., Carder, K. L., Garver, S. A., Kahru, M., and McClain, C.: Ocean color chlorophyll algorithms for SeaWiFS, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 103, 24937–24953, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JC02160, 1998. a
Pincus, R., Platnick, S., Ackerman, S. A., Hemler, R. S., and Hofmann, R. J. P.: Reconciling Simulated and Observed Views of Clouds: MODIS, ISCCP, and the Limits of Instrument Simulators, J. Climate, 25, 4699–4720, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00267.1, 2012. a, b, c
Rossow, W., Golea, V., Walker, A., Knapp, K., Young, A., Hankins, B., and Inamdar, A.: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) Climate Data Record, H-Series, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.7289/V5QZ281S, 2017. a
Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: ISCCP Cloud Data Products, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 2–20, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1991)072<0002:ICDP>2.0.CO;2, 1991. a
Salisbury, J. E., Jönsson, B. F., Mannino, A., Kim, W., Goes, J. I., Choi, J.-Y., and Concha, J. A.: Assessing Net Growth of Phytoplankton Biomass on Hourly to Annual Time Scales Using the Geostationary Ocean Color Instrument, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095528, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095528, 2021. a
Sathyendranath, S., Brewin, R. J., Brockmann, C., Brotas, V., Calton, B., Chuprin, A., Cipollini, P., Couto, A. B., Dingle, J., Doerffer, R., Donlon, C., Dowell, M., Farman, A., Grant, M., Groom, S., Horseman, A., Jackson, T., Krasemann, H., Lavender, S., Martinez-Vicente, V., Mazeran, C., Mélin, F., Moore, T. S., Müller, D., Regner, P., Roy, S., Steele, C. J., Steinmetz, F., Swinton, J., Taberner, M., Thompson, A., Valente, A., Zühlke, M., Brando, V. E., Feng, H., Feldman, G., Franz, B. A., Frouin, R., Gould, R. W., Hooker, S. B., Kahru, M., Kratzer, S., Mitchell, B. G., Muller-Karger, F. E., Sosik, H. M., Voss, K. J., Werdell, J., and Platt, T.: An Ocean-Colour Time Series for Use in Climate Studies: The Experience of the Ocean-Colour Climate Change Initiative (OC-CCI), Sensors, 19, 4285, https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194285, 2019. a
Schlunegger, S., Rodgers, K. B., Sarmiento, J. L., Ilyina, T., Dunne, J. P., Takano, Y., Christian, J. R., Long, M. C., Frölicher, T. L., Slater, R., and Lehner, F.: Time of Emergence and Large Ensemble Intercomparison for Ocean Biogeochemical Trends, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 34, e2019GB006453, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006453, 2020. a
Scott, J. P. and Werdell, P. J.: Comparing level-2 and level-3 satellite ocean color retrieval validation methodologies, Opt. Express, 27, 30140–30157, https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.030140, 2019. a
Siegel, D., Behrenfeld, M., Maritorena, S., McClain, C., Antoine, D., Bailey, S., Bontempi, P., Boss, E., Dierssen, H., Doney, S., Eplee, R., Evans, R., Feldman, G., Fields, E., Franz, B., Kuring, N., Mengelt, C., Nelson, N., Patt, F., Robinson, W., Sarmiento, J., Swan, C., Werdell, P., Westberry, T., Wilding, J., and Yoder, J.: Regional to global assessments of phytoplankton dynamics from the SeaWiFS mission, Remote Sens. Environ., 135, 77–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.025, 2013. a, b, c
Smith, R., Jones, P., Briegleb, B. P., Bryan, F. O., Danabasoglu, G., Dennis, J. M., Dukowicz, J., Eden, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Gent, P. R., Hecht, M., Jayne, S., Jochum, M., Large, W. G., Lindsay, K., Maltrud, M., Norton, N. J., Peacock, S. L., Vertenstein, M., and Yeager, S.: The Parallel Ocean Program (POP) reference manual: Ocean component of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), Tech. Rep. LAUR-10-01853, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2010. a
Stock, A., Subramaniam, A., Van Dijken, G. L., Wedding, L. M., Arrigo, K. R., Mills, M. M., Cameron, M. A., and Micheli, F.: Comparison of Cloud-Filling Algorithms for Marine Satellite Data, Remote Sensing, 12, 3313, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203313, 2020. a
Swales, D. J., Pincus, R., and Bodas-Salcedo, A.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package: Version 2, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 77–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-77-2018, 2018. a
Tittensor, D. P., Eddy, T. D., Lotze, H. K., Galbraith, E. D., Cheung, W., Barange, M., Blanchard, J. L., Bopp, L., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Büchner, M., Bulman, C., Carozza, D. A., Christensen, V., Coll, M., Dunne, J. P., Fernandes, J. A., Fulton, E. A., Hobday, A. J., Huber, V., Jennings, S., Jones, M., Lehodey, P., Link, J. S., Mackinson, S., Maury, O., Niiranen, S., Oliveros-Ramos, R., Roy, T., Schewe, J., Shin, Y.-J., Silva, T., Stock, C. A., Steenbeek, J., Underwood, P. J., Volkholz, J., Watson, J. R., and Walker, N. D.: A protocol for the intercomparison of marine fishery and ecosystem models: Fish-MIP v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1421–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1421-2018, 2018. a
van Oostende, M., Hieronymi, M., Krasemann, H., and Baschek, B.: Global ocean colour trends in biogeochemical provinces, Frontiers in Marine Science, 10, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1052166, 2023. a
Wang, Y., Liu, X., Hoose, C., and Wang, B.: Different contact angle distributions for heterogeneous ice nucleation in the Community Atmospheric Model version 5, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10411–10430, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10411-2014, 2014. a
Weatherhead, E. C., Reinsel, G. C., Tiao, G. C., Meng, X.-L., Choi, D., Cheang, W.-K., Keller, T., DeLuisi, J., Wuebbles, D. J., Kerr, J. B., Miller, A. J., Oltmans, S. J., and Frederick, J. E.: Factors affecting the detection of trends: Statistical considerations and applications to environmental data, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 17149–17161, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00995, 1998. a
Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359–384, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017, 2017. a
Wilson, J. D., Andrews, O., Katavouta, A., de Melo Viríssimo, F., Death, R. M., Adloff, M., Baker, C. A., Blackledge, B., Goldsworth, F. W., Kennedy-Asser, A. T., Liu, Q., Sieradzan, K. R., Vosper, E., and Ying, R.: The biological carbon pump in CMIP6 models: 21st century trends and uncertainties, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2204369119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204369119, 2022. a
Yeager, S. G., Rosenbloom, N., Glanville, A. A., Wu, X., Simpson, I., Li, H., Molina, M. J., Krumhardt, K., Mogen, S., Lindsay, K., Lombardozzi, D., Wieder, W., Kim, W. M., Richter, J. H., Long, M., Danabasoglu, G., Bailey, D., Holland, M., Lovenduski, N., Strand, W. G., and King, T.: The Seasonal-to-Multiyear Large Ensemble (SMYLE) prediction system using the Community Earth System Model version 2, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022. a
Short summary
Satellite observations of chlorophyll allow us to study marine phytoplankton on a global scale; yet some of these observations are missing due to clouds and other issues. To investigate the impact of missing data, we developed a satellite simulator for chlorophyll in an Earth system model. We found that missing data can impact the global mean chlorophyll by nearly 20 %. The simulated observations provide a more direct comparison to real-world data and can be used to improve model validation.
Satellite observations of chlorophyll allow us to study marine phytoplankton on a global scale;...
