Articles | Volume 18, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-18-1169-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
27 Feb 2025
Methods for assessment of models |
| 27 Feb 2025
| 27 Feb 2025
Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Lisa Bock
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Birgit Hassler
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Patrick Jöckel
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Lukas Ruhe
Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Manuel Schlund
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Related authors
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
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.
Arndt Kaps, Axel Lauer, Rémi Kazeroni, Martin Stengel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3001–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CCClim displays observations of clouds in terms of cloud classes that have been in use for a long time. CCClim is a machine-learning-powered product based on multiple existing observational products from different satellites. We show that the cloud classes in CCClim are physically meaningful and can be used to study cloud characteristics in more detail. The goal of this is to make real-world clouds more easily understandable to eventually improve the simulation of clouds in climate models.
Lisa Bock and Axel Lauer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1587–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations still show a large range of effective climate sensitivity (ECS) with high uncertainties. An important contribution to ECS is cloud climate feedback. We investigate the representation of cloud physical and radiative properties from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project models grouped by ECS. We compare the simulated cloud properties of today’s climate from three ECS groups and quantify how the projected changes in cloud properties and cloud radiative effects differ.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool was designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows for reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that have not been reformatted before.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
Manuel Schlund, Axel Lauer, Pierre Gentine, Steven C. Sherwood, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
As an important measure of climate change, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) describes the change in surface temperature after a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) show a wide range in ECS. Emergent constraints are a technique to reduce uncertainties in ECS with observational data. Emergent constraints developed with data from CMIP phase 5 show reduced skill and higher ECS ranges when applied to CMIP6 data.
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
William J. Collins, Fiona M. O'Connor, Rachael E. Byrom, Øivind Hodnebrog, Patrick Jöckel, Mariano Mertens, Gunnar Myhre, Matthias Nützel, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Laura Stecher, Larry W. Horowitz, Vaishali Naik, Gregory Faluvegi, Ulas Im, Lee T. Murray, Drew Shindell, Kostas Tsigaridis, Nathan Luke Abraham, and James Keeble
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 9031–9060, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9031-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9031-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We used 7 climate models that include atmospheric chemistry and find that in a scenario with weak controls on air quality, the warming effects (over 2015 to 2050) of decreases in ozone-depleting substances and increases in air quality pollutants are approximately equal and would make ozone the second highest contributor to warming over this period. We find that for stratospheric ozone recovery, the standard measure of climate effects underestimates a more comprehensive measure.
Yue Li, Gang Tang, Eleanor O’Rourke, Samar Minallah, Martim Mas e Braga, Sophie Nowicki, Robin S. Smith, David M. Lawrence, George C. Hurtt, Daniele Peano, Gesa Meyer, Birgit Hassler, Jiafu Mao, Yongkang Xue, and Martin Juckes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Land and Land Ice Theme Opportunities describe a list that contains 25 variable groups with 716 variables, which are potentially available to the broad scientific audience for performing analysis in land-atmosphere coupling, hydrological processes and freshwater systems, glacier and ice sheet mass balance and their influence on the sea levels, land use, and plant phenology.
Alex C. Ruane, Charlotte L. Pascoe, Claas Teichmann, David J. Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Ibrahima Diouf, Jesus Fernandez, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, Birgit Hassler, Vanessa Hernaman, Ulas Im, Doroteaciro Iovino, Martin Juckes, Iréne L. Lake, Timothy Lam, Xiaomao Lin, Jiafu Mao, Negin Nazarian, Sylvie Parey, Indrani Roy, Wan-Ling Tseng, Briony Turner, Andrew Wiebe, Lei Zhao, and Damaris Zurell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes how the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project organized its 7th phase (CMIP7) to encourage the production of Earth system model outputs relevant for impacts and adaptation. Community engagement identified 13 opportunities for application across human and natural systems, 60 variable groups and 539 unique variables. We also show how simulations can more efficiently meet applications needs by targeting appropriate resolution, time slices, experiments and variable groups.
Mara Y. McPartland, Tomas Lovato, Charles D. Koven, Jamie D. Wilson, Briony Turner, Colleen M. Petrik, José Licón-Saláiz, Fang Li, Fanny Lhardy, Jaclyn Clement Kinney, Michio Kawamiya, Birgit Hassler, Nathan P. Gillett, Cheikh Modou Noreyni Fall, Christopher Danek, Chris M. Brierley, Ana Bastos, and Oliver Andrews
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an international consortium of climate modeling groups that produce coordinated experiments in order to evaluate human influence on the climate and test knowledge of Earth systems. This paper describes the data requested for Earth systems research in CMIP7. We detail the request for model output of the carbon cycle, the flows of energy among the atmosphere, land and the oceans, and interactions between these and the global climate.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Matthias Kohl, Christoph Brühl, Jennifer Schallock, Holger Tost, Patrick Jöckel, Adrian Jost, Steffen Beirle, Michael Höpfner, and Andrea Pozzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3985-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
SO2 from explosive volcanic eruptions reaching the stratosphere can oxidize and form sulfur aerosols, potentially persisting for several years. We developed a new submodel, Explosive Volcanic ERuptions (EVER), that seamlessly includes stratospheric volcanic SO2 emissions in global numerical simulations based on a novel standard historical model setup, successfully evaluated with satellite observations. Sensitivity studies on the Nabro eruption in 2011 evaluate different emission methods.
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.
Johannes Degen, Bianca C. Baier, Patrick Jöckel, J. Moritz Menken, Tanja J. Schuck, Colm Sweeney, and Andreas Engel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2648, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2648, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the distribution of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere using both, observations and an atmospheric model. Simulating an artificial tracer, we separate CO2 seasonality from long-term trend and transport variability. We found that patterns in the seasonal signal are attributable to large-scale transport features like the subtropical jet or the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Being a powerful diagnostic tool we recommend to use this tracer for model intercomparisons.
Aytaç Paçal, Birgit Hassler, Katja Weigel, Miguel-Ángel Fernández-Torres, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are among the deadliest natural hazards, yet their causes and changes over time are not fully understood. We analyzed European heatwaves using a machine learning method that detects atmospheric patterns from these data. Our findings show that recent summer heatwaves differ from historical ones, indicating a shift in atmospheric dynamics consistent with climate change. This approach improves our understanding of the temporal evolution of heatwaves.
Patrick Peter, Sigrun Matthes, Christine Frömming, Patrick Jöckel, Luca Bugliaro, Andreas Giez, Martina Krämer, and Volker Grewe
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 5911–5934, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5911-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5911-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study examines how well the global climate model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry) predicts contrail formation by analysing temperature and humidity – two key factors for contrail development and persistence. The model underestimates temperature, leading to an overprediction of contrail formation and larger ice-supersaturated regions. Adjusting the model improves temperature accuracy but adds uncertainties. Better predictions of contrail formation areas can help optimise flight tracks to reduce aviation's climate effect.
Wolfgang A. Müller, Stephan Lorenz, Trang V. Pham, Andrea Schneidereit, Renate Brokopf, Victor Brovkin, Nils Brüggemann, Fatemeh Chegini, Dietmar Dommenget, Kristina Fröhlich, Barbara Früh, Veronika Gayler, Helmuth Haak, Stefan Hagemann, Moritz Hanke, Tatiana Ilyina, Johann Jungclaus, Martin Köhler, Peter Korn, Luis Kornblüh, Clarissa Kroll, Julian Krüger, Karel Castro-Morales, Ulrike Niemeier, Holger Pohlmann, Iuliia Polkova, Roland Potthast, Thomas Riddick, Manuel Schlund, Tobias Stacke, Roland Wirth, Dakuan Yu, and Jochem Marotzke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2473, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2473, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
ICON XPP is a newly developed Earth System model configuration based on the ICON modeling framework. It merges accomplishments from the recent operational numerical weather prediction model with well-established climate components for the ocean, land and ocean-biogeochemistry. ICON XPP reaches typical targets of a coupled climate simulation, and is able to run long integrations and large-ensemble experiments, making it suitable for climate predictions and projections, and for climate research.
Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón, Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez, Heidi Huntrieser, Patrick Jöckel, and Eric J. Bucsela
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 5557–5575, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5557-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5557-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Lightning plays a significant role in tropospheric chemistry by producing substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides. According to recent estimates, thunderstorms that produce a higher lightning frequency rate also produce less nitrogen oxide per flash. We implemented the dependency of nitrogen oxide production per flash on lightning flash frequency in a chemical atmospheric model.
Laura Stecher, Franziska Winterstein, Patrick Jöckel, Michael Ponater, Mariano Mertens, and Martin Dameris
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 5133–5158, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5133-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-5133-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Methane, the second most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, is chemically decomposed in the atmosphere. The chemical sink of atmospheric methane is not constant but depends on the temperature and on the abundance of its reaction partners. In this study, we use a global chemistry–climate model to assess the feedback of atmospheric methane induced by changes in the chemical sink in a warming climate and its implications for the chemical composition and the surface air temperature change.
Kevin Debeire, Lisa Bock, Peer Nowack, Jakob Runge, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 607–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current climate models still have large uncertainties, especially over land. This study presents a new method to improve precipitation projections by identifying which models best capture key climate patterns. By giving more weight to models that better represent these patterns, our approach leads to more reliable future precipitation projections over land.
Lukas Lindenlaub, Katja Weigel, Birgit Hassler, Colin Jones, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores changes in drought characteristic based on projections by 18 different Earth system models. Their performance is evaluated by comparing historical simulations to observation based reanalysis. The analysis of a standardized drought index under different future scenarios revealed that the harvest area that is projected to experience extreme drought conditions towards the end of this century ranges from 10 % to 40 % depending on the emission scenario.
Astrid Kerkweg, Timo Kirfel, Duong H. Do, Sabine Griessbach, Patrick Jöckel, and Domenico Taraborrelli
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1265–1286, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1265-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1265-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Normally, the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) is linked to complete dynamic models to create chemical climate models. However, the modular concept of MESSy and the newly developed DWARF component presented here make it possible to create simplified models that contain only one or a few process descriptions. This is very useful for technical optimisation, such as porting to GPUs, and can be used to create less complex models, such as a chemical box model.
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.
Catherine Acquah, Laura Stecher, Mariano Mertens, and Patrick Jöckel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-294, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-294, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Short-lived ozone precursor species influence the formation of ozone and also the atmospheric lifetime of methane. Our study assesses the effect of two widely used emission inventories of these species on ozone and the methane lifetime. Our results indicate tropospheric ozone and methane lifetime differences of around 4 % even though both emission inventories aim at representing present-day conditions. We further attribute the differences to emissions of individual sectors, e.g. land traffic.
Hossein Maazallahi, Foteini Stavropoulou, Samuel Jonson Sutanto, Michael Steiner, Dominik Brunner, Mariano Mertens, Patrick Jöckel, Antoon Visschedijk, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Stijn Dellaert, Nataly Velandia Salinas, Stefan Schwietzke, Daniel Zavala-Araiza, Sorin Ghemulet, Alexandru Pana, Magdalena Ardelean, Marius Corbu, Andreea Calcan, Stephen A. Conley, Mackenzie L. Smith, and Thomas Röckmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1497–1511, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article presents insights from airborne in situ measurements collected during the ROmanian Methane Emissions from Oil and gas (ROMEO) campaign supported by two models. Results reveal Romania's oil and gas methane emissions were significantly under-reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2019. A large underestimation was also found in the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) v7.0 for the study domain in the same year.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, and Sandro Vattioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then looked at the relations between ozone response and temperature and circulation changes to identify drivers of the ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated by doing offline calculations and comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone-climate interactions are important for Earth System Models, thus should be considered in future model development.
Xiaodan Ma, Jianping Huang, Michaela I. Hegglin, Patrick Jöckel, and Tianliang Zhao
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 943–958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-943-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-943-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our research explored changes in ozone levels in the northwest Pacific region over 30 years, revealing a significant increase in the middle-to-upper troposphere, especially during spring and summer. This rise is influenced by both stratospheric and tropospheric sources, which affect climate and air quality in East Asia. This work underscores the need for continued study to understand underlying mechanisms.
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.
Markus Kilian, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Mariano Mertens, Andreas Zahn, and Helmut Ziereis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13503–13523, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13503-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13503-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic emissions are a major source of precursors of tropospheric ozone. As ozone formation is highly non-linear, we apply a global–regional chemistry–climate model with a source attribution method (tagging) to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic emissions to ozone. Our analysis shows that the contribution of European anthropogenic emissions largely increases during large ozone periods, indicating that emissions from these sectors drive ozone values.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Mariano Mertens, Sabine Brinkop, Phoebe Graf, Volker Grewe, Johannes Hendricks, Patrick Jöckel, Anna Lanteri, Sigrun Matthes, Vanessa S. Rieger, Mattia Righi, and Robin N. Thor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12079–12106, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12079-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12079-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We quantified the contributions of land transport, shipping, and aviation emissions to tropospheric ozone; its radiative forcing; and the reductions of the methane lifetime using chemistry-climate model simulations. The contributions were analysed for the conditions of 2015 and for three projections for the year 2050. The results highlight the challenges of mitigating ozone formed by emissions of the transport sector, caused by the non-linearitiy of the ozone chemistry and the long lifetime.
Sergio Soler, Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez, Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón, Patrick Jöckel, Torsten Neubert, Olivier Chanrion, Victor Reglero, and Nikolai Østgaard
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10225–10243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10225-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10225-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sudden local ozone (O3) enhancements have been reported in different regions of the world since the 1970s. While the hot channel of lightning strokes directly produce significant amounts of nitrogen oxide, no direct emission of O3 is expected. Corona discharges in convective active regions could explain local O3 increases, which remains unexplained. We present the first mathematical functions that relate the global annual frequency of in-cloud coronas with four sets of meteorological variables.
Matthias Nützel, Laura Stecher, Patrick Jöckel, Franziska Winterstein, Martin Dameris, Michael Ponater, Phoebe Graf, and Markus Kunze
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5821–5849, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5821-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5821-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We extended the infrastructure of our modelling system to enable the use of an additional radiation scheme. After calibrating the model setups to the old and the new radiation scheme, we find that the simulation with the new scheme shows considerable improvements, e.g. concerning the cold-point temperature and stratospheric water vapour. Furthermore, perturbations of radiative fluxes associated with greenhouse gas changes, e.g. of methane, tend to be improved when the new scheme is employed.
Anna Martin, Veronika Gayler, Benedikt Steil, Klaus Klingmüller, Patrick Jöckel, Holger Tost, Jos Lelieveld, and Andrea Pozzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5705–5732, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5705-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5705-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The study evaluates the land surface and vegetation model JSBACHv4 as a replacement for the simplified submodel SURFACE in EMAC. JSBACH mitigates earlier problems of soil dryness, which are critical for vegetation modelling. When analysed using different datasets, the coupled model shows strong correlations of key variables, such as land surface temperature, surface albedo and radiation flux. The versatility of the model increases significantly, while the overall performance does not degrade.
Arndt Kaps, Axel Lauer, Rémi Kazeroni, Martin Stengel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3001–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CCClim displays observations of clouds in terms of cloud classes that have been in use for a long time. CCClim is a machine-learning-powered product based on multiple existing observational products from different satellites. We show that the cloud classes in CCClim are physically meaningful and can be used to study cloud characteristics in more detail. The goal of this is to make real-world clouds more easily understandable to eventually improve the simulation of clouds in climate models.
Simon Rosanka, Holger Tost, Rolf Sander, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, and Domenico Taraborrelli
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2597–2615, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2597-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2597-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The capabilities of the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) are extended to account for non-equilibrium aqueous-phase chemistry in the representation of deliquescent aerosols. When applying the new development in a global simulation, we find that MESSy's bias in modelling routinely observed reduced inorganic aerosol mass concentrations, especially in the United States. Furthermore, the representation of fine-aerosol pH is particularly improved in the marine boundary layer.
Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón, Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez, Alejandro Malagón-Romero, and Patrick Jöckel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 3577–3592, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3577-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-3577-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sprites are electrical discharges that occur in the upper atmosphere. Recent modelling and observational data suggest that they may have a measurable impact on atmospheric chemistry. We incorporate both the occurrence rate of sprites and their production of chemical species into a chemistry–climate model. While our results indicate that sprites have a minimal global influence on atmospheric chemistry, they underscore their noteworthy importance at a regional scale.
Lisa Bock and Axel Lauer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1587–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations still show a large range of effective climate sensitivity (ECS) with high uncertainties. An important contribution to ECS is cloud climate feedback. We investigate the representation of cloud physical and radiative properties from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project models grouped by ECS. We compare the simulated cloud properties of today’s climate from three ECS groups and quantify how the projected changes in cloud properties and cloud radiative effects differ.
Ryan S. Williams, Michaela I. Hegglin, Patrick Jöckel, Hella Garny, and Keith P. Shine
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1389–1413, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1389-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1389-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
During winter, a brief but abrupt reversal of the mean stratospheric westerly flow (~30 km high) around the Arctic occurs ~6 times a decade. Using a chemistry–climate model, about half of these events are shown to induce large anomalies in Arctic ozone (>25 %) and water vapour (>±25 %) around ~8–12 km altitude for up to 2–3 months, important for weather forecasting. We also calculate a doubling to trebling of the risk in breaches of mid-latitude surface air quality (ozone) standards (~60 ppbv).
Roland Eichinger, Sebastian Rhode, Hella Garny, Peter Preusse, Petr Pisoft, Aleš Kuchař, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, and Bastian Kern
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5561–5583, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5561-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5561-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The columnar approach of gravity wave (GW) schemes results in dynamical model biases, but parallel decomposition makes horizontal GW propagation computationally unfeasible. In the global model EMAC, we approximate it by GW redistribution at one altitude using tailor-made redistribution maps generated with a ray tracer. More spread-out GW drag helps reconcile the model with observations and close the 60°S GW gap. Polar vortex dynamics are improved, enhancing climate model credibility.
Marina Friedel, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, James Keeble, Thomas Peter, Svenja Seeber, Andrea Stenke, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Eugene Rozanov, David Plummer, Patrick Jöckel, Guang Zeng, Olaf Morgenstern, and Béatrice Josse
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10235–10254, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10235-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Previously, it has been suggested that springtime Arctic ozone depletion might worsen in the coming decades due to climate change, which might counteract the effect of reduced ozone-depleting substances. Here, we show with different chemistry–climate models that springtime Arctic ozone depletion will likely decrease in the future. Further, we explain why models show a large spread in the projected development of Arctic ozone depletion and use the model spread to constrain future projections.
Bryan J. Johnson, Patrick Cullis, John Booth, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Glen McConville, Birgit Hassler, Gary A. Morris, Chance Sterling, and Samuel Oltmans
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3133–3146, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3133-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3133-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In 1986, soon after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, NOAA began year-round ozonesonde observations at South Pole Station to measure vertical profiles of ozone and temperature from the surface to 35 km. Balloon-borne ozonesondes launched at this unique site allow for tracking all phases of the yearly springtime ozone hole beginning in late winter and after sunrise, when rapid ozone depletion begins over the South Pole throughout the month of September.
Robin N. Thor, Mariano Mertens, Sigrun Matthes, Mattia Righi, Johannes Hendricks, Sabine Brinkop, Phoebe Graf, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, and Steven Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1459–1466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1459-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1459-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We report on an inconsistency in the latitudinal distribution of aviation emissions between two versions of a data product which is widely used by researchers. From the available documentation, we do not expect such an inconsistency. We run a chemistry–climate model to compute the effect of the inconsistency in emissions on atmospheric chemistry and radiation and find that the radiative forcing associated with aviation ozone is 7.6 % higher when using the less recent version of the data.
Dominik Brunner, Gerrit Kuhlmann, Stephan Henne, Erik Koene, Bastian Kern, Sebastian Wolff, Christiane Voigt, Patrick Jöckel, Christoph Kiemle, Anke Roiger, Alina Fiehn, Sven Krautwurst, Konstantin Gerilowski, Heinrich Bovensmann, Jakob Borchardt, Michal Galkowski, Christoph Gerbig, Julia Marshall, Andrzej Klonecki, Pascal Prunet, Robert Hanfland, Margit Pattantyús-Ábrahám, Andrzej Wyszogrodzki, and Andreas Fix
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 2699–2728, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2699-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2699-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated six atmospheric transport models for their capability to simulate the CO2 plumes from two of the largest power plants in Europe by comparing the models against aircraft observations collected during the CoMet (Carbon Dioxide and Methane Mission) campaign in 2018. The study analyzed how realistically such plumes can be simulated at different model resolutions and how well the planned European satellite mission CO2M will be able to quantify emissions from power plants.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool was designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows for reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that have not been reformatted before.
Matthias Nützel, Sabine Brinkop, Martin Dameris, Hella Garny, Patrick Jöckel, Laura L. Pan, and Mijeong Park
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 15659–15683, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15659-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15659-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
During the Asian summer monsoon season, a large high-pressure system is present at levels close to the tropopause above Asia. We analyse how air masses are transported from surface levels to this high-pressure system, which shows distinct features from the surrounding air masses. To this end, we employ multiannual data from two complementary models that allow us to analyse the climatology as well as the interannual and intraseasonal variability of these transport pathways.
Johannes Pletzer, Didier Hauglustaine, Yann Cohen, Patrick Jöckel, and Volker Grewe
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14323–14354, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14323-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14323-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Very fast aircraft can travel long distances in extremely short times and can fly at high altitudes (15 to 35 km). These aircraft emit water vapour, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen. Water vapour emissions remain for months to several years at these altitudes and have an important impact on temperature. We investigate two aircraft fleets flying at 26 and 35 km. Ozone is depleted more, and the water vapour perturbation and temperature change are larger for the aircraft flying at 35 km.
Jin Maruhashi, Volker Grewe, Christine Frömming, Patrick Jöckel, and Irene C. Dedoussi
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14253–14282, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14253-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14253-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aviation NOx emissions lead to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere in the short term, which has a climate warming effect. This study uses global-scale simulations to characterize the transport patterns between NOx emissions at an altitude of ~ 10.4 km and the resulting ozone. Results show a strong spatial and temporal dependence of NOx in disturbing atmospheric O3 concentrations, with the location that is most impacted in terms of warming not necessarily coinciding with the emission region.
Kostas Eleftheratos, John Kapsomenakis, Ilias Fountoulakis, Christos S. Zerefos, Patrick Jöckel, Martin Dameris, Alkiviadis F. Bais, Germar Bernhard, Dimitra Kouklaki, Kleareti Tourpali, Scott Stierle, J. Ben Liley, Colette Brogniez, Frédérique Auriol, Henri Diémoz, Stana Simic, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Kaisa Lakkala, and Kostas Douvis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12827–12855, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12827-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12827-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present the future evolution of DNA-active ultraviolet (UV) radiation in view of increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) and decreasing ozone depleting substances (ODSs). It is shown that DNA-active UV radiation might increase after 2050 between 50° N–50° S due to GHG-induced reductions in clouds and ozone, something that is likely not to happen at high latitudes, where DNA-active UV radiation will continue its downward trend mainly due to stratospheric ozone recovery from the reduction in ODSs.
Simon F. Reifenberg, Anna Martin, Matthias Kohl, Sara Bacer, Zaneta Hamryszczak, Ivan Tadic, Lenard Röder, Daniel J. Crowley, Horst Fischer, Katharina Kaiser, Johannes Schneider, Raphael Dörich, John N. Crowley, Laura Tomsche, Andreas Marsing, Christiane Voigt, Andreas Zahn, Christopher Pöhlker, Bruna A. Holanda, Ovid Krüger, Ulrich Pöschl, Mira Pöhlker, Patrick Jöckel, Marcel Dorf, Ulrich Schumann, Jonathan Williams, Birger Bohn, Joachim Curtius, Hardwig Harder, Hans Schlager, Jos Lelieveld, and Andrea Pozzer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10901–10917, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10901-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10901-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we use a combination of observational data from an aircraft campaign and model results to investigate the effect of the European lockdown due to COVID-19 in spring 2020. Using model results, we show that the largest relative changes to the atmospheric composition caused by the reduced emissions are located in the upper troposphere around aircraft cruise altitude, while the largest absolute changes are present at the surface.
Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón, Heidi Huntrieser, Thilo Erbertseder, Diego Loyola, Pieter Valks, Song Liu, Dale J. Allen, Kenneth E. Pickering, Eric J. Bucsela, Patrick Jöckel, Jos van Geffen, Henk Eskes, Sergio Soler, Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez, and Jeff Lapierre
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3329–3351, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3329-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3329-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Lightning, one of the major sources of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, contributes to the tropospheric concentration of ozone and to the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere. In this work, we contribute to improving the estimation of lightning-produced nitrogen oxides in the Ebro Valley and the Pyrenees by using two different TROPOMI products and comparing the results.
M. Dolores Andrés Hernández, Andreas Hilboll, Helmut Ziereis, Eric Förster, Ovid O. Krüger, Katharina Kaiser, Johannes Schneider, Francesca Barnaba, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Jörg Schmidt, Heidi Huntrieser, Anne-Marlene Blechschmidt, Midhun George, Vladyslav Nenakhov, Theresa Harlass, Bruna A. Holanda, Jennifer Wolf, Lisa Eirenschmalz, Marc Krebsbach, Mira L. Pöhlker, Anna B. Kalisz Hedegaard, Linlu Mei, Klaus Pfeilsticker, Yangzhuoran Liu, Ralf Koppmann, Hans Schlager, Birger Bohn, Ulrich Schumann, Andreas Richter, Benjamin Schreiner, Daniel Sauer, Robert Baumann, Mariano Mertens, Patrick Jöckel, Markus Kilian, Greta Stratmann, Christopher Pöhlker, Monica Campanelli, Marco Pandolfi, Michael Sicard, José L. Gómez-Amo, Manuel Pujadas, Katja Bigge, Flora Kluge, Anja Schwarz, Nikos Daskalakis, David Walter, Andreas Zahn, Ulrich Pöschl, Harald Bönisch, Stephan Borrmann, Ulrich Platt, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5877–5924, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5877-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5877-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
EMeRGe provides a unique set of in situ and remote sensing airborne measurements of trace gases and aerosol particles along selected flight routes in the lower troposphere over Europe. The interpretation uses also complementary collocated ground-based and satellite measurements. The collected data help to improve the current understanding of the complex spatial distribution of trace gases and aerosol particles resulting from mixing, transport, and transformation of pollution plumes over Europe.
Andrea Pozzer, Simon F. Reifenberg, Vinod Kumar, Bruno Franco, Matthias Kohl, Domenico Taraborrelli, Sergey Gromov, Sebastian Ehrhart, Patrick Jöckel, Rolf Sander, Veronica Fall, Simon Rosanka, Vlassis Karydis, Dimitris Akritidis, Tamara Emmerichs, Monica Crippa, Diego Guizzardi, Johannes W. Kaiser, Lieven Clarisse, Astrid Kiendler-Scharr, Holger Tost, and Alexandra Tsimpidi
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2673–2710, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2673-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2673-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A newly developed setup of the chemistry general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM5/MESSy for Atmospheric Chemistry) is evaluated here. A comprehensive organic degradation mechanism is used and coupled with a volatility base model.
The results show that the model reproduces most of the tracers and aerosols satisfactorily but shows discrepancies for oxygenated organic gases. It is also shown that this model configuration can be used for further research in atmospheric chemistry.
Francisco J. Pérez-Invernón, Heidi Huntrieser, Patrick Jöckel, and Francisco J. Gordillo-Vázquez
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1545–1565, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1545-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1545-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study reports the first parameterization of long-continuing-current lightning in a climate model. Long-continuing-current lightning is proposed to be the main precursor of lightning-ignited wildfires and sprites, a type of transient luminous event taking place in the mesosphere. This parameterization can significantly contribute to improving the implementation of wildfires in climate models.
Christine Frömming, Volker Grewe, Sabine Brinkop, Patrick Jöckel, Amund S. Haslerud, Simon Rosanka, Jesper van Manen, and Sigrun Matthes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9151–9172, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9151-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9151-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The influence of weather situations on non-CO2 aviation climate impact is investigated to identify systematic weather-related sensitivities. If aircraft avoid the most sensitive areas, climate impact might be reduced. Enhanced significance is found for emission in relation to high-pressure systems, jet stream, polar night, and tropopause altitude. The results represent a comprehensive data set for studies aiming at weather-dependent flight trajectory optimization to reduce total climate impact.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Paul T. Griffiths, Lee T. Murray, Guang Zeng, Youngsub Matthew Shin, N. Luke Abraham, Alexander T. Archibald, Makoto Deushi, Louisa K. Emmons, Ian E. Galbally, Birgit Hassler, Larry W. Horowitz, James Keeble, Jane Liu, Omid Moeini, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Naga Oshima, David Tarasick, Simone Tilmes, Steven T. Turnock, Oliver Wild, Paul J. Young, and Prodromos Zanis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4187–4218, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse the CMIP6 Historical and future simulations for tropospheric ozone, a species which is important for many aspects of atmospheric chemistry. We show that the current generation of models agrees well with observations, being particularly successful in capturing trends in surface ozone and its vertical distribution in the troposphere. We analyse the factors that control ozone and show that they evolve over the period of the CMIP6 experiments.
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Ohad Harari, Shlomi Ziskin Ziv, Jian Rao, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Simone Tilmes, Douglas Kinnison, Fiona M. O'Connor, Neal Butchart, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Andrea Pozzer, and Sean Davis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3725–3740, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and El Niño is the dominant mode of variability in the ocean–atmosphere system. The connection between El Niño and water vapor above ~ 17 km is unclear, with single-model studies reaching a range of conclusions. This study examines this connection in 12 different models. While there are substantial differences among the models, all models appear to capture the fundamental physical processes correctly.
Patrick E. Sheese, Kaley A. Walker, Chris D. Boone, Doug A. Degenstein, Felicia Kolonjari, David Plummer, Douglas E. Kinnison, Patrick Jöckel, and Thomas von Clarmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1425–1438, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1425-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1425-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Output from climate chemistry models (CMAM, EMAC, and WACCM) is used to estimate the expected geophysical variability of ozone concentrations between coincident satellite instrument measurement times and geolocations. We use the Canadian ACE-FTS and OSIRIS instruments as a case study. Ensemble mean estimates are used to optimize coincidence criteria between the two instruments, allowing for the use of more coincident profiles while providing an estimate of the geophysical variation.
Franziska Winterstein and Patrick Jöckel
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 661–674, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-661-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-661-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric methane is currently a hot topic in climate research. This is partly due to its chemically active nature. We introduce a simplified approach to simulate methane in climate models to enable large sensitivity studies by reducing computational cost but including the crucial feedback of methane on stratospheric water vapour. We further provide options to simulate the isotopic content of methane and to generate output for an inverse optimization technique for emission estimation.
Laura Stecher, Franziska Winterstein, Martin Dameris, Patrick Jöckel, Michael Ponater, and Markus Kunze
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 731–754, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-731-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-731-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the impact of strongly increased atmospheric methane mixing ratios on the Earth's climate. An interactive model system including atmospheric dynamics, chemistry, and a mixed-layer ocean model is used to analyse the effect of doubled and quintupled methane mixing ratios. We assess feedbacks on atmospheric chemistry and changes in the stratospheric circulation, focusing on the impact of tropospheric warming, and their relevance for the model's climate sensitivity.
Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Eugene Rozanov, Ales Kuchar, William Ball, Pavle Arsenovic, Ellis Remsberg, Patrick Jöckel, Markus Kunze, David A. Plummer, Andrea Stenke, Daniel Marsh, Doug Kinnison, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 201–216, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-201-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-201-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The solar signal in the mesospheric H2O and CO was extracted from the CCMI-1 model simulations and satellite observations using multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis. MLR analysis shows a pronounced and statistically robust solar signal in both H2O and CO. The model results show a general agreement with observations reproducing a negative/positive solar signal in H2O/CO. The pattern of the solar signal varies among the considered models, reflecting some differences in the model setup.
Manuel Schlund, Axel Lauer, Pierre Gentine, Steven C. Sherwood, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
As an important measure of climate change, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) describes the change in surface temperature after a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) show a wide range in ECS. Emergent constraints are a technique to reduce uncertainties in ECS with observational data. Emergent constraints developed with data from CMIP phase 5 show reduced skill and higher ECS ranges when applied to CMIP6 data.
Edward J. Charlesworth, Ann-Kristin Dugstad, Frauke Fritsch, Patrick Jöckel, and Felix Plöger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15227–15245, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15227-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15227-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Modeling the stratosphere requires models with good representations of chemical transport. To do this, nearly all models divide the atmosphere into boxes. This creates some unwanted problems. However, the only other option is to divide the atmosphere into balloons, and this method is very complicated. Here, we use a model which uses this balloon-like method to estimate the impacts of this method on chemical transport. We find significant differences in sensitive regions of the stratosphere.
Yuanhong Zhao, Marielle Saunois, Philippe Bousquet, Xin Lin, Antoine Berchet, Michaela I. Hegglin, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Douglas Kinnison, Ole Kirner, Sarah Strode, Simone Tilmes, Edward J. Dlugokencky, and Bo Zheng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13011–13022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13011-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13011-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Decadal trends and variations in OH are critical for understanding atmospheric CH4 evolution. We quantify the impacts of OH trends and variations on the CH4 budget by conducting CH4 inversions on a decadal scale with an ensemble of OH fields. We find the negative OH anomalies due to enhanced fires can reduce the optimized CH4 emissions by up to 10 Tg yr−1 during El Niño years and the positive OH trend from 1986 to 2010 results in a ∼ 23 Tg yr−1 additional increase in optimized CH4 emissions.
Alina Fiehn, Julian Kostinek, Maximilian Eckl, Theresa Klausner, Michał Gałkowski, Jinxuan Chen, Christoph Gerbig, Thomas Röckmann, Hossein Maazallahi, Martina Schmidt, Piotr Korbeń, Jarosław Neçki, Pawel Jagoda, Norman Wildmann, Christian Mallaun, Rostyslav Bun, Anna-Leah Nickl, Patrick Jöckel, Andreas Fix, and Anke Roiger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 12675–12695, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-12675-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-12675-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A severe reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to fulfill the Paris Agreement. We use aircraft- and ground-based in situ observations of trace gases and wind speed from two flights over the Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Poland, for independent emission estimation. The derived methane emission estimates are within the range of emission inventories, carbon dioxide estimates are in the lower range and carbon monoxide emission estimates are slightly higher than emission inventory values.
Markus Kilian, Sabine Brinkop, and Patrick Jöckel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 11697–11715, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11697-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11697-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
After the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991, ozone decreased in the tropics and increased in the midlatitudes and polar regions for 1 year. The change in the ozone column is solely a result of the volcanic heating, followed by an ozone decrease in the higher latitudes. This is caused by the volcanic aerosol, which changes the heterogeneous chemistry and thus the catalytic ozone loss cycles. Vertical transport of water vapour is enhanced by volcanic heating and increases methane.
Hiroshi Yamashita, Feijia Yin, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, Sigrun Matthes, Bastian Kern, Katrin Dahlmann, and Christine Frömming
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4869–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4869-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4869-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the updated submodel AirTraf 2.0 which simulates global air traffic in the ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) model. Nine aircraft routing options have been integrated, including contrail avoidance, minimum economic costs, and minimum climate impact. Example simulations reveal characteristics of different routing options on air traffic performances. The consistency of the AirTraf simulations is verified with literature data.
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Matt Amos, Paul J. Young, J. Scott Hosking, Jean-François Lamarque, N. Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alexander T. Archibald, Slimane Bekki, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Douglas Kinnison, Ole Kirner, Markus Kunze, Marion Marchand, David A. Plummer, David Saint-Martin, Kengo Sudo, Simone Tilmes, and Yousuke Yamashita
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9961–9977, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9961-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9961-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present an updated projection of Antarctic ozone hole recovery using an ensemble of chemistry–climate models. To do so, we employ a method, more advanced and skilful than the current multi-model mean standard, which is applicable to other ensemble analyses. It calculates the performance and similarity of the models, which we then use to weight the model. Calculating model similarity allows us to account for models which are constructed from similar components.
Cited articles
Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P. P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version-2 global precipitation climatology project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004<1147:Tvgpcp>2.0.Co;2, 2003.
Adler, R. F., Sapiano, M. R. P., Huffman, G. J., Wang, J. J., Gu, G. J., Bolvin, D., Chiu, L., Schneider, U., Becker, A., Nelkin, E., Xie, P. 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.
Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov, N., Lauer, A., Mueller, B., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Adeniyi, K., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Berg, P., Bock, L., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Corti, S., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Deser, C., Diblen, F., Docquier, D., Dreyer, L., Ehbrecht, C., Earnshaw, P., Gier, B., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardacre, C., von Hardenberg, J., Hassler, B., Heuer, H., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Kuehbacher, B., Lledó, L., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Lorenz, R., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Mohr, C. W., Amarjiit, P., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Russell, J., Sandstad, M., Sellar, A., Senftleben, D., Serva, F., Sillmann, J., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Weigel, K., Sarauer, E., Roberts, C., Kalverla, P., Alidoost, S., Verhoeven, S., Vreede, B., Smeets, S., Soares Siqueira, A., Kazeroni, R., Potter, J., Winterstein, F., Beucher, R., Kraft, J., Ruhe, L., Bonnet, P., and Munday, G.: ESMValTool: A community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3401363, 2024.
Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov, N., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Bock, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Smeets, S., Camphuijsen, J., Gier, B. K., Weigel, K., Hauser, M., Kalverla, P., Galytska, E., Cos-Espuña, P., Pelupessy, I., Koirala, S., Stacke, T., Alidoost, S., Jury, M., Sénési, S., Crocker, T., Vreede, B., Soares Siqueira, A., Kazeroni, R., Hohn, D., Bauer, J., Beucher, R., Benke, J., Martin-Martinez, E., Cammarano, D., Yousong, Z., Malinina, E., and Garcia Perdomo, K.: ESMValCore: A community tool for pre-processing data from Earth system models in CMIP and running analysis scripts, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3387139, 2025.
Bao, Y., Song, Z. Y., and Qiao, F. L.: FIO-ESM Version 2.0: Model Description and Evaluation, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 125, e2019JC016036, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC016036, 2020.
Bi, D. H., Dix, M., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Sullivan, A., Bodman, R., Law, R., Harman, I., Srbinovsky, J., Rashid, H. A., Dobrohotoff, P., Mackallah, C., Yan, H. L., Hirst, A., Savita, A., Dias, F. B., Woodhouse, M., Fiedler, R., and Heerdegen, A.: Configuration and spin-up of ACCESS-CM2, the new generation Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Coupled Model, J. So. Hemisph. Earth, 70, 225–251, https://doi.org/10.1071/Es19040, 2020.
Bock, L., Lauer, A., Schlund, M., Barreiro, M., Bellouin, N., Jones, C., Meehl, G. A., Predoi, V., Roberts, M. J., and Eyring, V.: Quantifying Progress Across Different CMIP Phases With the ESMValTool, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD032321, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032321, 2020.
Boucher, O., J. Servonnat, A. L. Albright, O. Aumont, Y. Balkanski, V. Bastrikov, S. Bekki, R. Bonnet, S. Bony, L. Bopp, P. Braconnot, P. Brockmann, P. Cadule, A. Caubel, F. Cheruy, A. Cozic, D. Cugnet, F. D'Andrea, P. Davini, S. Denvil, J. Deshayes, A. Ducharne, J.-L. Dufresne, C. Ethé, L. Fairhead, L. Falletti, M.-A. Foujols, S. Gardoll, G. Gastineau, J. Ghattas, J.-Y. Grandpeix, B. Guenet, L. Guez, E. Guilyardi, M. Guimberteau, D. Hauglustaine, F. Hourdin, A. Idelkadi, S. Joussaume, M. Kageyama, A. Khadre-Traoré, M. Khodri, G. Krinner, N. Lebas, G. Levavasseur, C. Lévy, F. Lott, T. Lurton, S. Luyssaert, G. Madec, J.-B. Madeleine, F. Maignan, M. Marchand, O. Marti, L. Mellul, Y. Meurdesoif, J. Mignot, I. Musat, C. Ottlé, P. Peylin, Y. Planton, J. Polcher, C. Rio, C. Rousset, P. Sepulchre, A. Sima, D. Swingedouw, R. Thieblemont, M. Vancoppenolle, J. Vial, J. Vialard, N. Viovy, and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 125, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020.
Cao, J., Wang, B., Yang, Y.-M., Ma, L., Li, J., Sun, B., Bao, Y., He, J., Zhou, X., and Wu, L.: The NUIST Earth System Model (NESM) version 3: description and preliminary evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2975–2993, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2975-2018, 2018.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M. Q., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001354, 2018.
C3S – Copernicus Climate Change Service: ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate, https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5:+data+documentation (last access: 2 November 2021), 2017.
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 Syst., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
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., Holm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kallberg, P., Kohler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thepaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011.
Delworth, T. L., Stouffer, R. J., Dixon, K. W., Spelman, M. J., Knutson, T. R., Broccoli, A. J., Kushner, P. J., and Wetherald, R. T.: Review of simulations of climate variability and change with the GFDL R30 coupled climate model, Clim. Dynam., 19, 555–574, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-002-0249-5, 2002.
Dietmüller, S., Garny, H., Eichinger, R., and Ball, W. T.: Analysis of recent lower-stratospheric ozone trends in chemistry climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6811–6837, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6811-2021, 2021.
Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Adcroft, A. J., Ginoux, P., Held, I. M., John, J. G., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Shevliakova, E., Stock, C. A., Zadeh, N., Balaji, V., Blanton, C., Dunne, K. A., Dupuis, C., Durachta, J., Dussin, R., Gauthier, P. P. G., Griffies, S. M., Guo, H., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M., He, J., Hurlin, W., McHugh, C., Menzel, R., Milly, P. C. D., Nikonov, S., Paynter, D. J., Ploshay, J., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Reichl, B. G., Robinson, T., Schwarzkopf, D. M., Sentman, L. T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Wyman, B., Zeng, Y., and Zhao, M.: The GFDL Earth System Model Version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall Coupled Model Description and Simulation Characteristics, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS002015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015, 2020.
ECMWF – European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts: ERA5 Data documentation, https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-single-levels-monthly-means?tab=overview (last access: 20 July 2020), 2020.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brotz, 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., Muller, B., Pandde, A., Perez-Zanon, 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., Rao, K. M. A., Barimalala, R., Parrillo, M. B., Bellouin, N., Cassou, C., Durack, P. J., Kosaka, Y., McGregor, S., 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, Cambridge University Press, 423–552, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.005, 2021.
Frömming, C., Grewe, V., Brinkop, S., Jöckel, P., Haslerud, A. S., Rosanka, S., van Manen, J., and Matthes, S.: Influence of weather situation on non-CO2 aviation climate effects: the REACT4C climate change functions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9151–9172, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9151-2021, 2021.
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., Liu, H. L., Solomon, S. C., Polvani, L. M., Emmons, L. K., Lamarque, J. F., Richter, J. H., Glanville, A. S., Bacmeister, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Neale, R. B., Simpson, I. R., DuVivier, A. K., Hodzic, A., and Randel, W. J.: The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12380–12403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030943, 2019.
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D06104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd008972, 2008.
Guo, Y. Y., Yu, Y. Q., Lin, P. F., Liu, H. L., He, B., Bao, Q., Zhao, S. W., and Wang, X. W.: Overview of the CMIP6 Historical Experiment Datasets with the Climate System Model CAS FGOALS-f3-L, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 37, 1057–1066, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-2004-4, 2020.
Hajima, T., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Abe, M., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Okajima, H., Ito, A., Takata, K., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2197–2244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2197-2020, 2020.
Hassler, B. and Lauer, A.: Comparison of Reanalysis and Observational Precipitation Datasets Including ERA5 and WFDE5, Atmosphere, 124, 12380–12403, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111462, 2021.
Hendricks, J., Righi, M., Dahlmann, K., Gottschaldt, K. D., Grewe, V., Ponater, M., Sausen, R., Heinrichs, D., Winkler, C., Wolfermann, A., Kampffmeyer, T., Friedrich, R., Klötzke, M., and Kugler, U.: Quantifying the climate impact of emissions from land-based transport in Germany, Transp. Res. D-Tr E, 65, 825–845, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.003, 2018.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horanyi, A., Munoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Holm, E., Janiskova, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thepaut, J. N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.
Jöckel, P., Kerkweg, A., Pozzer, A., Sander, R., Tost, H., Riede, H., Baumgaertner, A., Gromov, S., and Kern, B.: Development cycle 2 of the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy2), Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 717–752, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-717-2010, 2010.
Jöckel, P., Lauer, A., Bock, L., Hassler, B., Ruhe, L., and Schlund, M.: Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11198444, 2025.
Kato, S., Rose, F. G., Rutan, D. A., Thorsen, T. J., Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Huang, X. L., Smith, W. L., Su, W. Y., and Ham, S. H.: Surface Irradiances of Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Data Product, J. Climate, 31, 4501–4527, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-17-0523.1, 2018.
Kuhlbrodt, T., Jones, C. G., Sellar, A., Storkey, D., Blockley, E., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Graham, T., Ridley, J., Blaker, A., Calvert, D., Copsey, D., Ellis, R., Hewitt, H., Hyder, P., Ineson, S., Mulcahy, J., Siahaan, A., and Walton, J.: The Low-Resolution Version of HadGEM3 GC3.1: Development and Evaluation for Global Climate, J. Adv. Model Earth. Syst., 10, 2865–2888, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001370, 2018.
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Bellprat, O., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Hunter, A., Lorenz, R., Perez-Zanon, N., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Senftleben, D., Weigel, K., and Zechlau, S.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0-diagnostics for emergent constraints and future projections from Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020.
Lauer, A., Bock, L., Hassler, B., Schröder, M., and Stengel, M.: Cloud climatologies from global climate models – a comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models with satellite data, J. Climate, 36, 281–311, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0181.1, 2023.
Lee, J., Kim, J., Sun, M. A., Kim, B. H., Moon, H., Sung, H. M., Kim, J., and Byun, Y. H.: Evaluation of the Korea Meteorological Administration Advanced Community Earth-System model (K-ACE), Asia-Pacif. J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 381–395, 2020.
Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Ahn, M. S., Ordonez, A., Ullrich, P. A., Sperber, K. R., Taylor, K. E., Planton, Y. Y., Guilyardi, E., Durack, P., Bonfils, C., Zelinka, M. D., Chao, L. W., Dong, B., Doutriaux, C., Zhang, C. Z., Vo, T., Boutte, J., Wehner, M. F., Pendergrass, A. G., Kim, D., Xue, Z. Y., Wittenberg, A. T., and Krasting, J.: Systematic and objective evaluation of Earth system models: PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP) version 3, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024.
Li, L. J., Yu, Y. Q., Tang, Y. L., Lin, P. F., Xie, J. B., Song, M. R., Dong, L., Zhou, T. J., Liu, L., Wang, L., Pu, Y., Chen, X. L., Chen, L., Xie, Z. H., Liu, H. B., Zhang, L. X., Huang, X., Feng, T., Zheng, W. P., Xia, K., Liu, H. L., Liu, J. P., Wang, Y., Wang, L. H., Jia, B. H., Xie, F., Wang, B., Zhao, S. W., Yu, Z. P., Zhao, B. W., and Wei, J. L.: The Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model Grid-Point Version 3 (FGOALS-g3): Description and Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS002012, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002012, 2020.
Lin, Y. L., Huang, X. M., Liang, Y. S., Qin, Y., Xu, S. M., Huang, W. Y., Xu, F. H., Liu, L., Wang, Y., Peng, Y. R., Wang, L. N., Xue, W., Fu, H. H., Zhang, G. J., Wang, B., Li, R. Z., Zhang, C., Lu, H., Yang, K., Luo, Y., Bai, Y. Q., Song, Z. Y., Wang, M. Q., Zhao, W. J., Zhang, F., Xu, J. H., Zhao, X., Lu, C. S., Chen, Y. Z., Luo, Y. Q., Hu, Y., Tang, Q., Chen, D. X., Yang, G. W., and Gong, P.: Community Integrated Earth System Model (CIESM): Description and Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS002036, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002036, 2020.
Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H. L., Su, W. Y., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G., Liang, L. S., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate, 31, 895–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-17-0208.1, 2018.
Matthes, S., Lim, L., Burkhardt, U., Dahlmann, K., Dietmüller, S., Grewe, V., Haslerud, A. S., Hendricks, J., Owen, B., Pitari, G., Righi, M., and Skowron, A.: Mitigation of Non-CO2 Aviation's Climate Impact by Changing Cruise Altitudes, Aerospace, 8, 36, https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8020036, 2021.
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Flaeschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H., Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T., Jimenez-de-la-Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S., Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Mobis, B., Muller, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nam, C. C. W., Notz, D., Nyawira, S. S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Popp, M., Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider, T., Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D., Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J. S., Tian, F. X., Voigt, A., Vrese, P., Wieners, K. H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner, E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and Its Response to Increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 998–1038, 2019.
Mertens, M., Jöckel, P., Matthes, S., Nützel, M., Grewe, V., and Sausen, R.: COVID-19 induced lower-tropospheric ozone changes, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 064005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf191, 2021.
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Winn, J. P., Hogan, E., Killick, R. E., Dunn, R. J. H., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. D., and Simpson, I. R.: An Updated Assessment of Near-Surface Temperature Change From 1850: The HadCRUT5 Data Set, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2019JD032361 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032361, 2021.
Muller, W. A., Jungclaus, J. H., Mauritsen, T., Baehr, J., Bittner, M., Budich, R., Bunzel, F., Esch, M., Ghosh, R., Haak, H., Ilyina, T., Kleine, T., Kornblueh, L., Li, H., Modali, K., Notz, D., Pohlmann, H., Roeckner, E., Stemmler, I., Tian, F., and Marotzke, J.: A Higher-resolution Version of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2-HR), J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1383–1413, 2018.
Nützel, M., Stecher, L., Jöckel, P., Winterstein, F., Dameris, M., Ponater, M., Graf, P., and Kunze, M.: Updating the radiation infrastructure in MESSy (based on MESSy version 2.55), Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5821–5849, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5821-2024, 2024.
Park, S., Shin, J., Kim, S., Oh, E., and Kim, Y.: Global Climate Simulated by the Seoul National University Atmosphere Model Version 0 with a Unified Convection Scheme (SAM0-UNICON), J. Climate, 32, 2917–2949, 2019.
Peyré, G. and Cuturi, M.: IMA IAI – Information and Inference special issue on optimal transport in data sciences, Inf. Inference, 8, 655–656, https://doi.org/10.1093/imaiai/iaz032, 2019.
Rackow, T., Goessling, H. F., Jung, T., Sidorenko, D., Semmler, T., Barbi, D., and Handorf, D.: Towards multi-resolution global climate modeling with ECHAM6-FESOM. Part II: climate variability, Clim. Dynam., 50, 2369–2394, 2018.
Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L. V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002670, 2003.
Righi, M., Hendricks, J., and Sausen, R.: The global impact of the transport sectors on atmospheric aerosol in 2030 – Part 1: Land transport and shipping, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 633–651, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-633-2015, 2015.
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.
Rind, D., Orbe, C., Jonas, J., Nazarenko, L., Zhou, T., Kelley, M., Lacis, A., Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Romanou, A., Russell, G., Tausnev, N., Bauer, M., and Schmidt, G.: GISS Model E2.2: A Climate Model Optimized for the Middle Atmosphere-Model Structure, Climatology, Variability, and Climate Sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD032204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032204, 2020.
Roeckner, E., Brokopf, R., Esch, M., Giorgetta, M., Hagemann, S., Kornblueh, L., Manzini, E., Schlese, U., and Schulzweida, U.: Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model, J. Climate, 19, 3771–3791, 2006.
Rong, X. Y., Li, J., Chen, H. M., Xin, Y. F., Su, J. Z., Hua, L. J., Zhou, T. J., Qi, Y. J., Zhang, Z. Q., Zhang, G., and Li, J. D.: The CAMS Climate System Model and a Basic Evaluation of Its Climatology and Climate Variability Simulation, J. Meteorol. Res., 32, 839–861, 2018.
Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., and Guibas, L. J.: The Earth Mover's Distance as a metric for image retrieval, Int. J. Comput. Vis., 40, 99–121, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026543900054, 2000.
Schlund, M., Hassler, B., Lauer, A., Andela, B., Jöckel, P., Kazeroni, R., Tomas, S. L., Medeiros, B., Predoi, V., Sénési, S., Servonnat, J., Stacke, T., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., and Eyring, V.: Evaluation of native Earth system model output with ESMValTool v2.6.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023.
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A., Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., Sénési, S., Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E., Geoffroy, O., Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Rocher, M., Roehrig, R., Salas-y-Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L., Valcke, S., Waldman, R., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé, C., and Madec, G.: Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 125, e2019JD032204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001791, 2019.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020.
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., and Palmieri, J.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019.
Semmler, T., Danilov, S., Gierz, P., Goessling, H. F., Hegewald, J., Hinrichs, C., Koldunov, N., Khosravi, N., Mu, L. J., Rackow, T., Sein, D. V., Sidorenko, D., Wang, Q., and Jung, T.: Simulations for CMIP6 With the AWI Climate Model AWI-CM-1-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS002009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002009, 2020.
Sidorenko, D., Rackow, T., Jung, T., Semmler, T., Barbi, D., Danilov, S., Dethloff, K., Dorn, W., Fieg, K., Goessling, H., Handorf, D., Harig, S., Hiller, W., Juricke, S., Losch, M., Schroter, J., Sein, D. V., and Wang, Q.: Towards multi-resolution global climate modeling with ECHAM6-FESOM. Part I: model formulation and mean climate, Clim. Dynam., 44, 757–780, 2015.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019.
Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo, K., Sekiguchi, M., Abe, M., Saito, F., Chikira, M., Watanabe, S., Mori, M., Hirota, N., Kawatani, Y., Mochizuki, T., Yoshimura, K., Takata, K., O'ishi, R., Yamazaki, D., Suzuki, T., Kurogi, M., Kataoka, T., Watanabe, M., and Kimoto, M.: Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2727–2765, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019, 2019.
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.
Uribe, A., Bender, F. A. M., and Mauritsen, T.: Observed and CMIP6 Modeled Internal Variability Feedbacks and Their Relation to Forced Climate Feedbacks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100075, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100075, 2022.
Vissio, G. and Lucarini, V.: Evaluating a stochastic parametrization for a fast-slow system using the Wasserstein distance, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 25, 413–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-25-413-2018, 2018.
Vissio, G., Lembo, V., Lucarini, V., and Ghil, M.: Evaluating the Performance of Climate Models Based on Wasserstein Distance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL08938, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089385, 2020.
Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Senesi, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Gueremy, J. F., Michou, M., Moine, M. P., Nabat, P., Roehrig, R., Melia, D. S. Y., Seferian, R., Valcke, S., Beau, I., Belamari, S., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Cattiaux, J., Deshayes, J., Douville, H., Ethe, C., Franchisteguy, L., Geoffroy, O., Levy, C., Madec, G., Meurdesoif, Y., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E., Terray, L., and Waldman, R.: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM-CM6-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 2177–2213, 2019.
Volodin, E. M., Mortikov, E. V., Kostrykin, S. V., Galin, V. Y., Lykosov, V. N., Gritsun, A. S., Diansky, N. A., Gusev, A. V., and Yakovlev, N. G.: Simulation of modern climate with the new version of the INM RAS climate model, Izv Atmos. Ocean Phys., 53, 142–155, https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433817020128, 2017.
Volodin, E. M., Mortikov, E. V., Kostrykin, S. V., Galin, V. Y., Lykossov, V. N., Gritsun, A. S., Diansky, N. A., Gusev, A. V., Iakovlev, N. G., Shestakova, A. A., and Emelina, S. V.: Simulation of the modern climate using the INM-CM48 climate model, Russ. J. Numer. Anal. M., 33, 367–374, https://doi.org/10.1515/rnam-2018-0032, 2018.
Wang, X., Lu, R., Wang, S. Y., Chen, R. T., Chen, Z. Q., Hui, F. M., Huang, H. B., and Cheng, X.: Assessing CMIP6 simulations of Arctic sea ice drift: Role of near-surface wind and surface ocean current in model performance, Adv. Clim. Change Res., 14, 691–706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2023.09.005, 2023.
Weigel, K., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Adeniyi, K., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Berg, P., Caron, L. P., Cionni, I., Corti, S., Drost, N., Hunter, A., Lledo, L., Mohr, C. W., Pacal, A., Perez-Zanon, N., Predoi, V., Sandstad, M., Sillmann, J., Sterl, A., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., and Eyring, V.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0-diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021.
Williams, K. D., Copsey, D., Blockley, E. W., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Calvert, D., Comer, R., Davis, P., Graham, T., Hewitt, H. T., Hill, R., Hyder, P., Ineson, S., Johns, T. C., Keen, A. B., Lee, R. W., Megann, A., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Roberts, M. J., Scaife, A. A., Schiemann, R., Storkey, D., Thorpe, L., Watterson, I. G., Walters, D. N., West, A., Wood, R. A., Woollings, T., and Xavier, P. K.: The Met Office Global Coupled Model 3.0 and 3.1 (GC3.0 and GC3.1) Configurations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 357–380, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ms001115, 2018.
Wu, T., Lu, Y., Fang, Y., Xin, X., Li, L., Li, W., Jie, W., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Wu, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Wang, Z., Shi, X., Liu, X., Wei, M., Huang, A., Zhang, Y., and Liu, X.: The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1573–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019, 2019.
Wu, T. W., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., Jie, W. H., Zhang, Y. W., Wu, F. H., Li, L., Yan, J. H., Liu, X. H., Lu, X., Tan, H. Y., Zhang, L., Wang, J., and Hu, A. X.: Beijing Climate Center Earth System Model version 1 (BCC-ESM1): model description and evaluation of aerosol simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 977–1005, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-977-2020, 2020.
Yazdandoost, F., Moradian, S., Izadi, A., and Aghakouchak, A.: Evaluation of CMIP6 precipitation simulations across different climatic zones: Uncertainty and model intercomparison, Atmos. Res., 250, 105369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105369, 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.
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: Description and Basic Evaluation of the Physical Component, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 97, 931–965, 2019.
Zhang, Y. C. and Rossow, W. B.: Global Radiative Flux Profile Data Set: Revised and Extended, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 128, e2022JD037340, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037340, 2023.
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M. A., Law, R. M., Lenton, A., Bodman, R. W., Dix, M., Stevens, L., Wang, Y. P., and Srbinovsky, J.: The Australian Earth System Model: ACCESS-ESM1.5, J. So. Hemisph. Earth, 70, 193–214, https://doi.org/10.1071/Es19035, 2020.
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.
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to...
