Articles | Volume 18, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025
© 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
| 
14 May 2025
Methods for assessment of models |
| 14 May 2025
| 14 May 2025
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
Martin Juckes
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
UKRI STFC, Didcot, UK
Karl E. Taylor
PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Fabrizio Antonio
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
David Brayshaw
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Carlo Buontempo
ECMWF, Bonn, Germany
Jian Cao
Earth System Modeling Center, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
Paul J. Durack
PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Michio Kawamiya
JAMSTEC, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan
Hyungjun Kim
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejon, South Korea
Tomas Lovato
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Chloe Mackallah
CSIRO, Climate Science Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Matthew Mizielinski
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Alessandra Nuzzo
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Martina Stockhause
DKRZ, Hamburg, Germany
Daniele Visioni
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Jeremy Walton
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Briony Turner
CMIP International Project Office, Didcot, UK
Eleanor O'Rourke
CMIP International Project Office, Didcot, UK
Beth Dingley
CMIP International Project Office, Didcot, UK
Related authors
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 3129–3155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3129-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3129-2026, 2026
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.
Chloe Mackallah, Martin Juckes, James Anstey, Beth Dingley, Charlotte Pascoe, Gaëlle Rigoudy, Marie-Pierre Moine, Tomas Lovato, Alison Pamment, Martin Schupfner, Michio Kawamiya, Tommi Bergman, Charles Koven, Eleanor O'Rourke, Briony Turner, Daniel Ellis, and Matthew Mizielinski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1641, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1641, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the creation of a new set of output data requirements for upcoming global climate model experiments performed for CMIP7, an international climate modelling activity. Experts from the community helped to co-create a database that describes which data should be produced, and the scientific justifications behind these choices. It supports growing climate research and policy needs by linking experiments and variables to scientific objectives and real‑world applications.
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 9497–9540, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, 2025
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.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates 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; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 3129–3155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3129-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3129-2026, 2026
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.
Isobel M. Parry, Paul D. L. Ritchie, Olivier Boucher, Peter M. Cox, James M. Haywood, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 387–414, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Contrary to some expectations, results from the latest Earth System Models suggest that Solar Radiation Geoengineering could protect the Amazon rainforest from climate-driven dieback. Under Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, carbon storage in Amazonia was projected to increase by a mean of 10.8 % relative to a high CO2 emissions scenario, and even by 8.6% compared to a more conventional medium CO2 emissions scenario.
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2945–2984, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2945-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2945-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (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.
Alistair Duffey, Walker Lee, Lauren Wheeler, Peter Irvine, Benjamin Wagman, Matthew Henry, Daniele Visioni, Michel Tsamados, and Douglas MacMartin
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 353–385, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-353-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-353-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Adding a layer of reflective particles high in the atmosphere is one suggested way of cooling the planet and reducing the impacts of climate change. This technique might be less logistically difficult in the high latitudes, because the material could be released at lower altitude there. Here, we use new simulations in three earth system models to assess how this form of intervention, High-Latitude Low-Altitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (HiLLA-SAI), would impact the global climate.
Mara Y. McPartland, Tomas Lovato, Charles 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
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2849–2880, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2849-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2849-2026, 2026
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.
Chloe Mackallah, Martin Juckes, James Anstey, Beth Dingley, Charlotte Pascoe, Gaëlle Rigoudy, Marie-Pierre Moine, Tomas Lovato, Alison Pamment, Martin Schupfner, Michio Kawamiya, Tommi Bergman, Charles Koven, Eleanor O'Rourke, Briony Turner, Daniel Ellis, and Matthew Mizielinski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1641, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1641, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the creation of a new set of output data requirements for upcoming global climate model experiments performed for CMIP7, an international climate modelling activity. Experts from the community helped to co-create a database that describes which data should be produced, and the scientific justifications behind these choices. It supports growing climate research and policy needs by linking experiments and variables to scientific objectives and real‑world applications.
Jacopo Alessandri, Giulia Bonino, Tomas Lovato, Momme Butenschön, Lorenzo Mentaschi, Giorgia Verri, Ivan Federico, and Nadia Pinardi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1119, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1119, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Coastal seas are strongly shaped by complex coastlines, shallow depths, and inputs from rivers, which influence marine life and water quality. This study introduces a new high-resolution modelling system that combines ocean circulation and marine ecosystem processes on unstructured grids. Applied to the northern Adriatic Sea, the model realistically captures seasonal changes in key biogeochemical variables, offering improved tools to support coastal environmental management.
Jared Farley, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Ewa M. Bednarz, Alistair Duffey, Matthew Henry, and Ali Akherati
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1809–1831, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1809-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1809-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate changes, many are studying sunlight reflection as a potential method of cooling. Such climate intervention could be deployed in many possible ways, including in scenarios where not every actor agrees on the strategy of cooling. These scenarios are so diverse that to explore all of them using earth system models proves to be too costly. In this paper, we develop a simplified climate model that allows users to easily explore climate intervention scenarios of their choice.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Ilaria Quaglia, Yunqian Zhu, Charles G. Bardeen, Francis Vitt, and Pengfei Yu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 2649–2666, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2649-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2649-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two sets of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiments using the same modeling framework, differing only in their aerosol microphysical schemes. Results show that these two schemes can yield substantially different aerosol burdens, radiative changes, and impacts when simulating the same injection scenarios. These findings suggest that more sophisticated aerosol models may be necessary to accurately assess the efficacy, side effects, and climate impacts of SAI.
Andrin Jörimann, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, David Plummer, Shingo Watanabe, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Gabriel Chiodo, Daniele Visioni, Sandro Vattioni, Eugene Rozanov, Ewa M. Bednarz, Béatrice Jossé, Yousuke Yamashita, and Thomas Peter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-444, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-444, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
We study a future scenario where artificial stratospheric aerosol injections counter medium climate change, to understand possible negative side effects like ozone depletion. The injected aerosol layer is implemented uniformly in five climate models, which eliminates some uncertainty from model-specific aerosol evolution. The models agree well on where and how key thermodynamical (heating, circulation) and chemical processes change, however, the strength of the change varies considerably.
Cindy Wang, Daniele Visioni, Glen Chua, and Ewa M. Bednarz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 1339–1357, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-1339-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-1339-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method to slow global warming by adding tiny reflective particles high up in the atmosphere to cool the planet. We study how this proposed method might affect air quality and human health using climate models. We find that the health impacts would likely be small and are mainly driven by changes in climate, not by the particles themselves.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, James M. Haywood, Matthew Henry, Andy Jones, Ben Kravitz, Walker R. Lee, Douglas G. MacMartin, Amanda C. Maycock, Takashi Sekiya, Shingo Watanabe, and Daniele Visioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-310, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-310, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
An assessment of the potential impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a proposed method to offset global warming, on stratospheric ozone projections over the 21st century using the new multi-model GeoMIP G6-1.5K-SAI experiment. We discuss drivers of the responses, identify areas of model agreement and disagreement and sources of uncertainty. Our results highlight the need to assess any projected SAI impacts in wider strategy and scenario dimension using a multi-model framework.
Jon Cranko Page, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andy J. Pitman, Isaac R. Towers, Gabriele Arduini, Martin J. Best, Craig R. Ferguson, Jürgen Knauer, Hyungjun Kim, David M. Lawrence, Tomoko Nitta, Keith W. Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Anna Ukkola, Nicholas Vuichard, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, and Gab Abramowitz
Biogeosciences, 23, 263–282, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-263-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-263-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This paper used a large dataset of observations, machine learning predictions, and computer model simulations to test how well land surface models represent the water, energy, and carbon cycles. We found that the models work well under "normal" weather but do not meet performance expectations during coinciding extreme conditions. Since these extremes are relatively rare, targeted model improvements could deliver major performance gains.
Katharina Perny, Timofei Sukhodolov, Ales Kuchar, Pavle Arsenovic, Bernadette Rosati, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Andrin Jörimann, Anton Laakso, Graham Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Takashi Sekiya, Kengo Sudo, Claudia Timmreck, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, and Harald E. Rieder
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5915, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5915, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Major volcanic eruptions, such as the one of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, can inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The resulting aerosol cloud affects stratospheric temperature and thereby middle atmospheric dynamics and chemistry. Here we investigate similarities and differences across an ensemble of climate models in reproducing the stratospheric temperature signal following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 9497–9540, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, 2025
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.
Walker Raymond Lee, Daniele Visioni, Benjamin Moore Wagman, Christopher Robert Wentland, Ben Kravitz, Shingo Watanabe, Takashi Sekiya, Andy Jones, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, and Ewa Monika Bednarz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5742, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5742, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a proposed method of cooling the planet by introducing reflective particles called aerosols into the middle atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. We consider recent simulations of SAI from four different climate models. SAI cools the planet effectively in all four models; we examine the impacts on temperature and precipitation in each model and compare to previous experiments. Our simulations will help inform future research and policy.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates 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; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Robin S. Smith, Tarkan A. Bilge, Thomas J. Bracegirdle, Paul R. Holland, Till Kuhlbrodt, Charlotte Lang, Spencer Liddicoat, Tom Mitcham, Jane Mulcahy, Kaitlin A. Naughten, Andrew Orr, Julien Palmieri, Antony J. Payne, Steven Rumbold, Marc Stringer, Ranjini Swaminathan, Sarah Taylor, Jeremy Walton, and Colin Jones
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4476, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4476, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a dangerous amount of uncertainty in our predictions of climate change in polar regions because some of feedbacks that might lead to changes that are too rapid for us to adapt to, or that cannot be reversed. We have run a set of simulations with a state-of-the-art Earth System Model that helps improve our understanding of how climate in these regions might change. Some of the aspects we investigate are reversible but many are not, especially those affecting ice sheets and sea level.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Yunqian Zhu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Valentina Aquila, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham W. Mann, Yifeng Peng, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Pengfei Yu, Jun Zhang, and Wandi Yu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
On January 15, 2022, the Hunga volcano eruption released unprecedented amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere alongside a modest amount of SO2. In this work we analyse results from multiple Earth system models. The models agree that the eruption led to small negative radiative forcing from sulfate aerosols and that the contribution from water vapor was minimal. Therefore, the Hunga eruption cannot explain the exceptional surface warming observed in 2023.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elizabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Peter R. Colarco, Sandip Dhomse, Lola Falletti, Eric Fleming, Ben Johnson, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5487–5512, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model–observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goals of this activity: (1) to evaluate the climate model performance and (2) to understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Ezra Brody, Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Ewa M. Bednarz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1325–1341, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is being studied as a possible supplement to emission reduction to temporarily mitigate some of the risks associated with climate change. The latitudes at which SAI is done determine the effect on the climate. We try to find if there are combinations of latitudes that do a better job of counteracting climate change than existing strategies. We found that there are, but just how significant these improvements are depends on the amount of cooling.
Ross J. Herbert, Andrew I. L. Williams, Philipp Weiss, Duncan Watson-Parris, Elisabeth Dingley, Daniel Klocke, and Philip Stier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7789–7814, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7789-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7789-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds exist at scales that climate models struggle to represent, limiting our knowledge of how climate change may impact clouds. Here we use a new kilometer-scale global model representing an important step towards the necessary scale. We focus on how aerosol particles modify clouds, radiation, and precipitation. We find the magnitude and manner of responses tend to vary from region to region, highlighting the potential of global kilometer-scale simulations and a need to represent aerosols in climate models.
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
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.
Baylor Fox-Kemper, Patricia DeRepentigny, Anne Marie Treguier, Christian Stepanek, Eleanor O’Rourke, Chloe Mackallah, Alberto Meucci, Yevgeny Aksenov, Paul J. Durack, Nicole Feldl, Vanessa Hernaman, Céline Heuzé, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gaurav Madan, André L. Marquez, François Massonnet, Jenny Mecking, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Patrick C. Taylor, Wan-Ling Tseng, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Yona Silvy, Thomas L. Frölicher, Jens Terhaar, Fortunat Joos, Friedrich A. Burger, Fabrice Lacroix, Myles Allen, Raffaele Bernardello, Laurent Bopp, Victor Brovkin, Jonathan R. Buzan, Patricia Cadule, Martin Dix, John Dunne, Pierre Friedlingstein, Goran Georgievski, Tomohiro Hajima, Stuart Jenkins, Michio Kawamiya, Nancy Y. Kiang, Vladimir Lapin, Donghyun Lee, Paul Lerner, Nadine Mengis, Estela A. Monteiro, David Paynter, Glen P. Peters, Anastasia Romanou, Jörg Schwinger, Sarah Sparrow, Eric Stofferahn, Jerry Tjiputra, Etienne Tourigny, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1591–1628, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1591-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1591-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The adaptive emission reduction approach is applied with Earth system models to generate temperature stabilization simulations. These simulations provide compatible emission pathways and budgets for a given warming level, uncovering uncertainty ranges previously missing in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project scenarios. These target-based emission-driven simulations offer a more coherent assessment across models for studying both the carbon cycle and its impacts under climate stabilization.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Ilaria Quaglia and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1527–1541, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
On 1 January 2020, international shipping vessels were required to substantially reduce the amount of particulate they emit to improve air quality. In this work we demonstrate how this regulatory change contributed to the anomalous warming observed in recent months using climate model simulations that include such a change. Future policies should also perhaps consider their impact on climate, and climate modelers should promptly include those changes in future modeling efforts.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study is the second in a two-part series in which we explore the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on both the model employed and the strategy of injection utilized. The study uncovers uncertainties associated with these techniques to cool climate, highlighting how the simulated climate impacts are dependent on both the selected model and the magnitude of the injections. We also show that estimating precipitation impacts of aerosol injection is a complex task.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 191–213, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and mitigate some risks associated with climate change, but injecting it at different latitudes and seasons would have different impacts. This study introduces new stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies and explores the importance of the choice of SAI strategy, demonstrating that it notably affects the distribution of aerosol cloud, injection efficiency, and various surface climate impacts.
Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 415–430, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Remapping gridded data in a way that preserves the conservative properties of the climate system can be essential in coupling model components and for accurate assessment of the system’s energy and mass constituents. Remapping packages capable of handling a wide variety of grids can, for some common grids, calculate remapping weights that are somewhat inaccurate. Correcting for these errors, guidelines are provided to ensure conservation when the weights are used in practice.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Jon Seddon, Ag Stephens, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Pier Luigi Vidale, and Malcolm J. Roberts
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6689–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The PRIMAVERA project aimed to develop a new generation of advanced global climate models. The large volume of data generated was uploaded to a central analysis facility (CAF) and was analysed by 100 PRIMAVERA scientists there. We describe how the PRIMAVERA project used the CAF's facilities to enable users to analyse this large dataset. We believe that similar, multi-institute, big-data projects could also use a CAF to efficiently share, organise and analyse large volumes of data.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
Matthew Henry, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Mohit Dalvi, Alice Wells, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Walker Lee, and Mari R. Tye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate interventions, such as injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, may be used to offset some of the adverse impacts of global warming. We use two independently developed Earth system models to assess the uncertainties around stratospheric sulfur injections. The injection locations and amounts are optimized to maintain the same pattern of surface temperature. While both models show reduced warming, the change in rainfall patterns (even without sulfur injections) is uncertain.
Mark D. Zelinka, Christopher J. Smith, Yi Qin, and Karl E. Taylor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8879–8898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The primary uncertainty in how strongly Earth's climate has been perturbed by human activities comes from the unknown radiative impact of aerosol changes. Accurately quantifying these forcings – and their sub-components – in climate models is crucial for understanding the past and future simulated climate. In this study we describe biases in previously published estimates of aerosol radiative forcing in climate models and provide corrected estimates along with code for users to compute them.
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Alban Planchat, Lester Kwiatkowski, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Torres, James R. Christian, Momme Butenschön, Tomas Lovato, Roland Séférian, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Olivier Aumont, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, Tatiana Ilyina, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, John P. Dunne, and Charles Stock
Biogeosciences, 20, 1195–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean alkalinity is critical to the uptake of atmospheric carbon and acidification in surface waters. We review the representation of alkalinity and the associated calcium carbonate cycle in Earth system models. While many parameterizations remain present in the latest generation of models, there is a general improvement in the simulated alkalinity distribution. This improvement is related to an increase in the export of biotic calcium carbonate, which closer resembles observations.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Ilaria Quaglia, Claudia Timmreck, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Christina Brodowsky, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Henning Franke, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Eugene Rozanov, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The last very large explosive volcanic eruption we have measurements for is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It is therefore often used as a benchmark for climate models' ability to reproduce these kinds of events. Here, we compare available measurements with the results from multiple experiments conducted with climate models interactively simulating the aerosol cloud formation.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Building on Part 1 of this two-part study, we demonstrate the role of biases in climatological circulation and specific aspects of model microphysics in driving the differences in simulated sulfate distributions amongst three Earth system models. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface responses discussed in Part 1.
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The paper constitutes Part 1 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAIs) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models. We identify similarities and differences in the modeled aerosol burden, investigate the differences in the aerosol approaches between the models, and ultimately show the differences produced in surface climate, temperature and precipitation.
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
Marco Reale, Gianpiero Cossarini, Paolo Lazzari, Tomas Lovato, Giorgio Bolzon, Simona Masina, Cosimo Solidoro, and Stefano Salon
Biogeosciences, 19, 4035–4065, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4035-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4035-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Future projections under the RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 emission scenarios of the Mediterranean Sea biogeochemistry at the end of the 21st century show different levels of decline in nutrients, oxygen and biomasses and an acidification of the water column. The signal intensity is stronger under RCP8.5 and in the eastern Mediterranean. Under RCP4.5, after the second half of the 21st century, biogeochemical variables show a recovery of the values observed at the beginning of the investigated period.
Mari R. Tye, Katherine Dagon, Maria J. Molina, Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We examined the potential effect of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on extreme temperature and precipitation. SAI may cause daytime temperatures to cool but nighttime to warm. Daytime cooling may occur in all seasons across the globe, with the largest decreases in summer. In contrast, nighttime warming may be greatest at high latitudes in winter. SAI may reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall. The combined changes may exacerbate drying over parts of the global south.
Kathrin Wehrli, Fei Luo, Mathias Hauser, Hideo Shiogama, Daisuke Tokuda, Hyungjun Kim, Dim Coumou, Wilhelm May, Philippe Le Sager, Frank Selten, Olivia Martius, Robert Vautard, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1167–1196, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1167-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1167-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The ExtremeX experiment was designed to unravel the contribution of processes leading to the occurrence of recent weather and climate extremes. Global climate simulations are carried out with three models. The results show that in constrained experiments, temperature anomalies during heatwaves are well represented, although climatological model biases remain. Further, a substantial contribution of both atmospheric circulation and soil moisture to heat extremes is identified.
Fei Luo, Frank Selten, Kathrin Wehrli, Kai Kornhuber, Philippe Le Sager, Wilhelm May, Thomas Reerink, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Hideo Shiogama, Daisuke Tokuda, Hyungjun Kim, and Dim Coumou
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 905–935, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-905-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-905-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Recent studies have identified the weather systems in observational data, where wave patterns with high-magnitude values that circle around the whole globe in either wavenumber 5 or wavenumber 7 are responsible for the extreme events. In conclusion, we find that the climate models are able to reproduce the large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns as well as their associated surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and sea level pressure.
Martina Stockhause and Michael Lautenschlager
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6047–6058, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6047-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6047-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Data Distribution Centre (DDC) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2022. DDC Partner DKRZ has supported the IPCC Assessments and preserved the quality-assured, citable climate model data underpinning the Assessment Reports over these years over the long term. With the introduction of the IPCC FAIR Guidelines into the current AR6, the value of DDC services has been recognized. However, DDC sustainability remains unresolved.
Hannah C. Bloomfield, David J. Brayshaw, Matthew Deakin, and David Greenwood
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 2749–2766, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2749-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2749-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
There is a global increase in renewable generation to meet carbon targets and reduce the impacts of climate change. Renewable generation and electricity demand depend on the weather. This means there is a need for high-quality weather data for energy system modelling. We present a new European-level, 70-year dataset which has been specifically designed to support the energy sector. We provide hourly, sub-national climate outputs and include the impacts of near-term climate change.
Xiaoxu Shi, Martin Werner, Carolin Krug, Chris M. Brierley, Anni Zhao, Endurance Igbinosa, Pascale Braconnot, Esther Brady, Jian Cao, Roberta D'Agostino, Johann Jungclaus, Xingxing Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Dmitry Sidorenko, Robert Tomas, Evgeny M. Volodin, Hu Yang, Qiong Zhang, Weipeng Zheng, and Gerrit Lohmann
Clim. Past, 18, 1047–1070, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-1047-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-1047-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Since the orbital parameters of the past are different from today, applying the modern calendar to the past climate can lead to an artificial bias in seasonal cycles. With the use of multiple model outputs, we found that such a bias is non-ignorable and should be corrected to ensure an accurate comparison between modeled results and observational records, as well as between simulated past and modern climates, especially for the Last Interglacial.
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5757–5773, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Carbonyl sulfide is a gas that mixes very well in the atmosphere and can reach the stratosphere, where it reacts with sunlight and produces aerosol. Here we propose that, by increasing surface fluxes by an order of magnitude, the number of stratospheric aerosols produced may be enough to partially offset the warming produced by greenhouse gases. We explore what effect this would have on the atmospheric composition.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations by six Earth-system models of geoengineering by introducing sulfuric acid aerosols into the tropical stratosphere are compared. A robust impact on the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation is found, exacerbating precipitation reduction over parts of southern Europe. In contrast, the models show no consistency with regard to impacts on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, although results do indicate a risk that the oscillation could become locked into a permanent westerly phase.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Enrico Scoccimarro, Daniele Peano, Silvio Gualdi, Alessio Bellucci, Tomas Lovato, Pier Giuseppe Fogli, and Antonio Navarra
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1841–1854, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1841-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1841-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated the ability of the CMCC-CM2 climate model participating to the last CMIP6 effort, in representing extreme events of precipitation and temperature at the daily and 6-hourly frequencies. The 1/4° resolution version of the atmospheric model provides better results than the version at 1° resolution for temperature extremes, at both time frequencies. For precipitation extremes, especially at the daily time frequency, the higher resolution does not improve model results.
Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, Charles Bardeen, Michael Mills, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are simulated in a simplified way in climate models: in the model analyzed here, they are represented in every grid as described by three simple logarithmic distributions, mixing all different species together. The size can evolve when new particles are formed, particles merge together to create a larger one or particles are deposited to the surface. This approximation normally works fairly well. Here we show however that when large amounts of sulfate are simulated, there are problems.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adding SO2 to the stratosphere could temporarily cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. However, adding SO2 at different latitude(s) and season(s) leads to significant differences in regional surface climate. This study shows that, to cool the planet by 1–1.5 °C, there are likely six to eight choices of injection latitude(s) and season(s) that lead to meaningfully different distributions of climate impacts.
Anton Laakso, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The use of different spatio-temporal sulfur injection strategies with different magnitudes to create an artificial reflective aerosol layer to cool the climate is studied using sectional and modal aerosol schemes in a climate model. There are significant differences in the results depending on the aerosol microphysical module used. Different spatio-temporal injection strategies have a significant impact on the magnitude and zonal distribution of radiative forcing and atmospheric dynamics.
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7545–7571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is increasingly being included in large-scale (continental to global) land surface and hydrologic simulations. However, it is challenging to evaluate these simulations because groundwater is
hiddenunderground and thus hard to measure. We suggest using multiple complementary strategies to assess the performance of a model (
model evaluation).
Seoung Soo Lee, Kyung-Ja Ha, Manguttathil Gopalakrishnan Manoj, Mohammad Kamruzzaman, Hyungjun Kim, Nobuyuki Utsumi, Youtong Zheng, Byung-Gon Kim, Chang Hoon Jung, Junshik Um, Jianping Guo, Kyoung Ock Choi, and Go-Un Kim
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16843–16868, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16843-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16843-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Using a modeling framework, a midlatitude stratocumulus cloud system is simulated. It is found that cloud mass in the system becomes very low due to interactions between ice and liquid particles compared to that in the absence of ice particles. It is also found that interactions between cloud mass and aerosols lead to a reduction in cloud mass in the system, and this is contrary to an aerosol-induced increase in cloud mass in the absence of ice particles.
Trevor J. McDougall, Paul M. Barker, Ryan M. Holmes, Rich Pawlowicz, Stephen M. Griffies, and Paul J. Durack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6445–6466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We show that the way that the air–sea heat flux is treated in ocean models means that the model's temperature variable should be interpreted as being Conservative Temperature, irrespective of whether the equation of state used in an ocean model is EOS-80 or TEOS-10.
Daisuke Tokuda, Hyungjun Kim, Dai Yamazaki, and Taikan Oki
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5669–5693, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5669-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5669-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We developed TCHOIR, a hydrologic simulation framework, to solve fluvial- and thermodynamics of the river–lake continuum. This provides an algorithm for upscaling high-resolution topography as well, which enables the representation of those interactions at the global scale. Validation against in situ and satellite observations shows that the coupled mode outperforms river- or lake-only modes. TCHOIR will contribute to elucidating the role of surface hydrology in Earth’s energy and water cycle.
Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Emanuel Dutra, Anna Agustí-Panareda, Clément Albergel, Gabriele Arduini, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Souhail Boussetta, Margarita Choulga, Shaun Harrigan, Hans Hersbach, Brecht Martens, Diego G. Miralles, María Piles, Nemesio J. Rodríguez-Fernández, Ervin Zsoter, Carlo Buontempo, and Jean-Noël Thépaut
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4349–4383, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The creation of ERA5-Land responds to a growing number of applications requiring global land datasets at a resolution higher than traditionally reached. ERA5-Land provides operational, global, and hourly key variables of the water and energy cycles over land surfaces, at 9 km resolution, from 1981 until the present. This work provides evidence of an overall improvement of the water cycle compared to previous reanalyses, whereas the energy cycle variables perform as well as those of ERA5.
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new set of simulations is used to investigate commonalities, differences and sources of uncertainty when simulating the injection of SO2 in the stratosphere in order to mitigate the effects of climate change (solar geoengineering). The models differ in how they simulate the aerosols and how they spread around the stratosphere, resulting in differences in projected regional impacts. Overall, however, the models agree that aerosols have the potential to mitigate the warming produced by GHGs.
Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol modification (SAM) can alter the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Our simulations with two different models show that the characteristics of the QBO response are primarily determined by the meridional structure of the aerosol-induced heating. Therefore, the QBO response to SAM depends primarily on the location of injection, while injection type and rate act to scale the specific response. Our results have important implications for evaluating adverse side effects of SAM.
Hannah C. Bloomfield, David J. Brayshaw, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, and Andrew Charlton-Perez
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2259–2274, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2259-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2259-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Energy systems are becoming more exposed to weather as more renewable generation is built. This means access to high-quality weather forecasts is becoming more important. This paper showcases past forecasts of electricity demand and wind power and solar power generation across 28 European countries. The timescale of interest is from 5 d out to 1 month ahead. This paper highlights the recent improvements in forecast skill and hopes to promote collaboration in the energy–meteorology community.
Cited articles
Buontempo, C., Burgess, S. N., Dee, D., Pinty, B., Thépaut, J.-N., Rixen, M., Almond, S., Armstrong, D., Brookshaw, A., López-Alos, A., Bell, B., Bergeron, C., Cagnazzo, C., Comyn-Platt, E., Damasio-Da-Costa, E., Guillory, A., Hersbach, H., Horányi, A., Nicolas, J., Obregon, A., Ramos, E. P., Raoult, B., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Suttie, M., Vamborg, F., Varndell, J., Vermoote, S., Yang, X., and Garcés de Marcilla, J.: The Copernicus Climate Change Service: Climate Science in Action, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 103, E2669–E2687, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0315.1, 2022.
Craig, M. T., Wohland, J., Stoop, L. P., Kies, A., Pickering, B., Bloomfield, H. C., Browell, J., De Felice, M., Dent, C. J., Deroubaix, A.,nFrischmuth, F., Gonzalez, P. L., Grochowicz, A., Gruber, K., Härtel, P., Kittel, M., Kotzur, L., Labuhn, I., Lundquist, J. K., Pflugradt, N., van der Wiel, K., Zeyringer, M., and Brayshaw, D. J.: Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling, Joule, 6, 1405–1417, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.05.010, 2022.
Dubus, L., Brayshaw, D. J., Huertas-Hernando, D., Radu, D., Sharp, J., Zappa, W., and Stoop, L. P.: Towards a future-proof climate database for European energy system studies, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 121001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca1d3, 2022.
Durack, P. J., Taylor, K. E., Mizielinski, M., Doutriaux, C., Nadeau, D., and Juckes, M.: WCRP-CMIP/CMIP6_CVs: 6.2.58.68, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12197151, 2024.
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.
Fiore, S., Nassisi, P., Nuzzo, A., Mirto, M., Cinquini, L., Williams, D., and Aloisio, G.: A climate change community gateway for data usage & data archive metrics across the earth system grid federation, CEUR workshop proceedings, Vol. 2975, CEUR-WS, https://iris.unitn.it/handle/11572/329932 (last access: 14 March 2025), 2021.
Flato, G. M.: Earth system models: An overview, WIREs Climate Change, 2, 783–800, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.148, 2011.
Griffies, S. M., Danabasoglu, G., Durack, P. J., Adcroft, A. J., Balaji, V., Böning, C. W., Chassignet, E. P., Curchitser, E., Deshayes, J., Drange, H., Fox-Kemper, B., Gleckler, P. J., Gregory, J. M., Haak, H., Hallberg, R. W., Heimbach, P., Hewitt, H. T., Holland, D. M., Ilyina, T., Jungclaus, J. H., Komuro, Y., Krasting, J. P., Large, W. G., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., McDougall, T. J., Nurser, A. J. G., Orr, J. C., Pirani, A., Qiao, F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., Treguier, A. M., Tsujino, H., Uotila, P., Valdivieso, M., Wang, Q., Winton, M., and Yeager, S. G.: OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016.
Gerber, E. P. and Manzini, E.: The Dynamics and Variability Model Intercomparison Project (DynVarMIP) for CMIP6: assessing the stratosphere–troposphere system, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3413–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3413-2016, 2016.
Guterres, A.: Planet Hurtling towards Hell of Global Heating, Secretary-General Warns Austrian World Summit, Urging Immediate Emissions Cuts, Fair Climate Funding, UN Press Release, https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm21799.doc.htm (last access: 14 March 2025), 2023.
Gutowski Jr., W. J., Giorgi, F., Timbal, B., Frigon, A., Jacob, D., Kang, H.-S., Raghavan, K., Lee, B., Lennard, C., Nikulin, G., O'Rourke, E., Rixen, M., Solman, S., Stephenson, T., and Tangang, F.: WCRP COordinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX): a diagnostic MIP for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4087–4095, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4087-2016, 2016.
Haarsma, R. J., Roberts, M. J., Vidale, P. L., Senior, C. A., Bellucci, A., Bao, Q., Chang, P., Corti, S., Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., von Hardenberg, J., Hazeleger, W., Kodama, C., Koenigk, T., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Luo, J.-J., Mao, J., Mizielinski, M. S., Mizuta, R., Nobre, P., Satoh, M., Scoccimarro, E., Semmler, T., Small, J., and von Storch, J.-S.: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016.
Hohenegger, C., Korn, P., Linardakis, L., Redler, R., Schnur, R., Adamidis, P., Bao, J., Bastin, S., Behravesh, M., Bergemann, M., Biercamp, J., Bockelmann, H., Brokopf, R., Brüggemann, N., Casaroli, L., Chegini, F., Datseris, G., Esch, M., George, G., Giorgetta, M., Gutjahr, O., Haak, H., Hanke, M., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T., Jungclaus, J., Kern, M., Klocke, D., Kluft, L., Kölling, T., Kornblueh, L., Kosukhin, S., Kroll, C., Lee, J., Mauritsen, T., Mehlmann, C., Mieslinger, T., Naumann, A. K., Paccini, L., Peinado, A., Praturi, D. S., Putrasahan, D., Rast, S., Riddick, T., Roeber, N., Schmidt, H., Schulzweida, U., Schütte, F., Segura, H., Shevchenko, R., Singh, V., Specht, M., Stephan, C. C., von Storch, J.-S., Vogel, R., Wengel, C., Winkler, M., Ziemen, F., Marotzke, J., and Stevens, B.: ICON-Sapphire: simulating the components of the Earth system and their interactions at kilometer and subkilometer scales, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 779–811, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, 2023.
International Bureau of Weights and Measures: The International System of Units, 9th edn., https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9.pdf (last access: 1 November 2024), 2019.
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Core Writing Team, Lee, H., and Romero, J., IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 34 pp., https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001, 2023.
Jones, C. D., Arora, V., Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Dunne, J., Graven, H., Hoffman, F., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Jung, M., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Randerson, J. T., and Zaehle, S.: C4MIP – The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project: experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2853–2880, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016, 2016.
Juckes, M.: Style Guide for Variable Titles in CMIP6 (0.01), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2480853, 2018.
Juckes, M.: CMIP Data Request Schema 2.0, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4287148, 2020.
Juckes, M.: Code to review the ESGF CMIP6 index, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15190399, 2025a.
Juckes, M.: WCRP Baseline Variables – MIP Prioritisation raw data (v1.4), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14701274, 2025b.
Juckes, M., Taylor, K. E., Durack, P. J., Lawrence, B., Mizielinski, M. S., Pamment, A., Peterschmitt, J.-Y., Rixen, M., and Sénési, S.: The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, 2020.
Kershaw, P., Abdulla, G., Ames, S., and Evans, B.: ESGF Future Architecture Report, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3928223, 2020.
Klein Tank, A., Zwiers, F., and Zhang, X.: Guidelines on Analysis of Extremes in a Changing Climate in Support of Informed Decisions for Adaptation, World Meteorological Organization, https://www.ecad.eu/documents/WCDMP_72_TD_1500_en_1.pdf (last access: 14 March 2025), 2009.
Lee, J., Gleckler, P., Ordonez, A., Ahn, M.-S., Ullrich, P., Vo, T., Boutte, J., Doutriaux, C., Durack, P., Shaheen, Z., Muryanto, L., Painter, J., and Krasting, J.: PCMDI/pcmdi_metrics: PMP Version 2.5.1 (v2.5.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7231033, 2022.
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., Vo, T., Boutte, J., Wehner, M. F., Pendergrass, A. G., Kim, D., Xue, Z., 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.
Magagna, B., Schinder, S., Stoica, M., Moncoiffe, G., Devaraju, A., and Pamment, A.: I-ADOPT Framework ontology, https://w3id.org/iadopt/ont/1.0.3 (last access: 1 November 2024), 2023.
Mauzey, C., Doutriaux, C., Nadeau, D., Taylor, K. E., Durack, P. J., Betts, E., Cofino, A. S., Florek, P., Hogan, E., Kettleborough, J., Nicholls, Z., Ogochi, K., Rodríguez González, J. M., Seddon, J., Wachsmann, F., and Weigel, T.: The Climate Model Output Rewriter (CMOR) (Version 3.9.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.592733, 2024.
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: Intercomparison makes for a better climate model, Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 78, 445, https://doi.org/10.1029/97EO00276, 1997.
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 81, 313–318, 2000.
Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Taylor, K. E., Delworth, T., Stouffer, R. J., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., and Mitchell, J. F. B.: The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, 2007.
Notz, D., Jahn, A., Holland, M., Hunke, E., Massonnet, F., Stroeve, J., Tremblay, B., and Vancoppenolle, M.: The CMIP6 Sea-Ice Model Intercomparison Project (SIMIP): understanding sea ice through climate-model simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3427–3446, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3427-2016, 2016.
O'Rourke, E.: CMIP6 Community Survey Results, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8113057, 2023.
O'Rourke, E. and Turner, B. (Eds.): Priority variables for evaluation and exploitation of WCRP climate simulations workshop report, Top priority variables community workshop, online, 12 and 17 May 2022, https://doi.org/10.59555/TUOC4428, 2022.
Petrie, R., Denvil, S., Ames, S., Levavasseur, G., Fiore, S., Allen, C., Antonio, F., Berger, K., Bretonnière, P.-A., Cinquini, L., Dart, E., Dwarakanath, P., Druken, K., Evans, B., Franchistéguy, L., Gardoll, S., Gerbier, E., Greenslade, M., Hassell, D., Iwi, A., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Lacinski, L., Mirto, M., Nasser, A. B., Nassisi, P., Nienhouse, E., Nikonov, S., Nuzzo, A., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S., Rixen, M., Serradell, K., Snow, K., Stephens, A., Stockhause, M., Vahlenkamp, H., and Wagner, R.: Coordinating an operational data distribution network for CMIP6 data, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 629–644, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, 2021.
Petrie, R., Eggleton, F., and Juckes, M.: CF Compliance errors in the CMIP6 archive, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12820690, 2024.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI): Standard Output, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/cmip5/docs/standard_output.xls (last access: 3 July 2024), 2013.
Ruane, A. C., Teichmann, C., Arnell, N. W., Carter, T. R., Ebi, K. L., Frieler, K., Goodess, C. M., Hewitson, B., Horton, R., Kovats, R. S., Lotze, H. K., Mearns, L. O., Navarra, A., Ojima, D. S., Riahi, K., Rosenzweig, C., Themessl, M., and Vincent, K.: The Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services Advisory Board (VIACS AB v1.0) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3493–3515, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3493-2016, 2016.
Stockhause, M., Höck, H., Toussaint, F., and Lautenschlager, M.: Quality assessment concept of the World Data Center for Climate and its application to CMIP5 data, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1023–1032, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1023-2012, 2012.
Tan, J., Duan, Q., Xiao, C., He, C., and Yan, X.: A brief review of the coupled human-Earth system modeling: Current state and challenges, The Anthropocene Review, 10, 664–684, https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221149121, 2023.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, 2012.
Taylor, K. E., Juckes, M., Balaji, V., Cinquini, L., Denvil, S., Durack, P. J., Elkington, M., Guilyardi, E., Kharin, S., Lautenschlager, M., Lawrence, B., Nadeau, D., and Stockhause, M.: CMIP6 Model Output Metadata Requirements, Data Reference Syntax (DRS) and Controlled Vocabularies (CVs), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12768887, 2018.
Touzé-Peiffer, L., Barberousse, A., and Le Treut, H.: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project: History, uses, and structural effects on climate research, WIREs Clim. Change, 11, e648, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.648, 2020.
United Nations: Paris Agreement, United Nations Treaty Collection, Chapter XXVII 7. d, adopted 2015-12-12 and inforce 2016-11-04, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 3156, p. 79, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/02/20160215%2006-03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf (last access: 6 March 2025), 2015.
van den Hurk, B., Kim, H., Krinner, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Derksen, C., Oki, T., Douville, H., Colin, J., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Viovy, N., Puma, M. J., Wada, Y., Li, W., Jia, B., Alessandri, A., Lawrence, D. M., Weedon, G. P., Ellis, R., Hagemann, S., Mao, J., Flanner, M. G., Zampieri, M., Materia, S., Law, R. M., and Sheffield, J.: LS3MIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: the Land Surface, Snow and Soil moisture Model Intercomparison Project – aims, setup and expected outcome, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2809–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2809-2016, 2016.
WCRP Working Group on Coupled Modeling: Report of the 22nd session of the WCRP Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM), vol. 14 of WCRP Report, World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.wcrp-climate.org/WCRP-publications/2019/WCRP-Report-No14-2019-WGCM22.pdf (last access: 6 March 2025), 2019.
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., Lledó, L., Mohr, C. W., Paçal, A., Pérez-Zanón, 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.
WGCM Climate Simulation Panel: IPCC Standard Output from Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere GCMs, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/cmip3/variableList.html (last access: 5 December 2024), 2007.
World Meteorological Organisation: The 2022 GCOS Implementation Plan, WMO GCOS 244, World Meteorological Organisation, https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/58104 (last access: 5 December 2024), 2022a.
World Meteorological Organisation: GCOS-22: The 2022 GCOS ECVs Requirements, WMO GCOS-245, World Meteorological Organisation, https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/58111 (last access: 5 December 2024), 2022b.
World Meteorological Organisation: Manual on Codes – International Codes, Volume I.2, Annex II to the WMO Technical Regulations, World Meteorological Organisation, https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/35625 (last access: 5 December 2024), 2023.
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of...
Special issue