Articles | Volume 18, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025
© 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-18-3681-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
20 Jun 2025
Development and technical paper |
| 20 Jun 2025
| 20 Jun 2025
Tuning the ICON-A 2.6.4 climate model with machine-learning-based emulators and history matching
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Lorenzo Pastori
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Mierk Schwabe
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Marco Giorgetta
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Fernando Iglesias-Suarez
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Veronika Eyring
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Katharina Hafner, Sara Shamekh, Guillaume Bertoli, Axel Lauer, Robert Pincus, Julien Savre, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Most climate models cannot resolve clouds and cloud-radiation interactions at coarse horizontal resolutions of about 100 km, which introduces uncertainties. High-resolution models resolve clouds better but are expensive to run. We use short high-resolution simulations and artificial intelligence to learn the cloud-radiation interactions without making any assumptions about the small scales. We propose a new method that significantly reduces cloud related errors.
Diajeng W. Atmojo, Katja Weigel, Arthur Grundner, Marika M. Holland, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
This study improves the sea ice albedo parametrisation in the Finite-Element Sea Ice Model by discovering an equation using symbolic regression, an interpretable machine learning method. Leveraging satellite and reanalyses data, our discovered equation identifies high sensitivity to thin snow and the weighted temperature difference between sea ice surface and 2 m air as critical to determine sea ice albedo. Our findings contribute to improving Arctic climate projections and understanding.
Evgenia Galytska, Birgit Hassler, Carlo Arosio, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Sandip S. Dhomse, Kimberlee Dubé, Wuhu Feng, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Jakob Runge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6426983/v2, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6426983/v2, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
We explored how chemical and dynamical processes shape ozone in the tropical middle stratosphere. Using a method that identifies cause and effect with satellite data and a chemistry-transport model, we found that from 2004–2011 nitrous oxide quickly affected nitrogen dioxide and ozone, while from 2012–2018 this effect was delayed, weakening ozone loss. Large-scale winds also influenced this link, clarifying how different mechanisms control ozone.
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.
Yushi Morioka, Eric Maisonnave, Sébastien Masson, Clement Rousset, Luis Kornblueh, Marco Giorgetta, Masami Nonaka, and Swadhin K. Behera
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2258, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2258, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean mesoscale eddies, which have a horizontal scale with an order of 100 km, play a prominent role in global ocean heat transport that regulates Earth climate. Here we newly develop an eddy-permitting climate model to demonstrate that the increased ocean model resolution improves representation of air-sea interaction in the western and eastern boundary current regions, while the improved sea ice model physics benefit realistic simulation of sea ice variability.
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.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
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.
Sebastian H. M. Hickman, Makoto Kelp, Paul T. Griffiths, Kelsey Doerksen, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, Elyse A. Pennington, Gerbrand Koren, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, Martin G. Schultz, Kai-Lan Chang, Owen R. Cooper, Alexander T. Archibald, Roberto Sommariva, David Carlson, Hantao Wang, J. Jason West, and Zhenze Liu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3739, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3739, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning is being more widely used across environmental and climate science. This work reviews the use of machine learning in tropospheric ozone research, focusing on three main application areas in which significant progress has been made. Common challenges in using machine learning across the three areas are highlighted, and future directions for the field are indicated.
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.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
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.
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.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Gerald A. Meehl, Jakob Runge, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 689–715, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores Atlantic–Pacific interactions and their response to external factors. Causal analysis of 1950–2014 data reveals a shift from a Pacific- to an Atlantic-driven regime. Contrasting impacts between El Niño and tropical Atlantic temperatures are highlighted, along with different pathways connecting the two oceans. The findings also suggest increasing remote contributions of forced Atlantic responses in modulating local Pacific responses during the most recent analyzed decades.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate simulation of tropical cyclones (TCs) is essential to understanding their behavior in a changing climate. One way this is accomplished is through model intercomparison projects, where results from multiple climate models are analyzed to provide benchmark solutions for the wider climate modeling community. This study describes and analyzes the previously developed TC test case for nine climate models in an intercomparison project, providing solutions that aid in model development.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Jakob Runge, Gerald A. Meehl, Adam S. Phillips, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 309–344, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a causal discovery method to evaluate the ability of climate models to represent the interactions between the Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) and the Pacific decadal variability (PDV). The approach and findings in this study present a powerful methodology that can be applied to a number of environment-related topics, offering tremendous insights to improve the understanding of the complex Earth system and the state of the art of climate modeling.
Cathy Hohenegger, Peter Korn, Leonidas Linardakis, René Redler, Reiner Schnur, Panagiotis Adamidis, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Milad Behravesh, Martin Bergemann, Joachim Biercamp, Hendryk Bockelmann, Renate Brokopf, Nils Brüggemann, Lucas Casaroli, Fatemeh Chegini, George Datseris, Monika Esch, Geet George, Marco Giorgetta, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Moritz Hanke, Tatiana Ilyina, Thomas Jahns, Johann Jungclaus, Marcel Kern, Daniel Klocke, Lukas Kluft, Tobias Kölling, Luis Kornblueh, Sergey Kosukhin, Clarissa Kroll, Junhong Lee, Thorsten Mauritsen, Carolin Mehlmann, Theresa Mieslinger, Ann Kristin Naumann, Laura Paccini, Angel Peinado, Divya Sri Praturi, Dian Putrasahan, Sebastian Rast, Thomas Riddick, Niklas Roeber, Hauke Schmidt, Uwe Schulzweida, Florian Schütte, Hans Segura, Radomyra Shevchenko, Vikram Singh, Mia Specht, Claudia Christine Stephan, Jin-Song von Storch, Raphaela Vogel, Christian Wengel, Marius Winkler, Florian Ziemen, Jochem Marotzke, and Bjorn Stevens
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 779–811, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Models of the Earth system used to understand climate and predict its change typically employ a grid spacing of about 100 km. Yet, many atmospheric and oceanic processes occur on much smaller scales. In this study, we present a new model configuration designed for the simulation of the components of the Earth system and their interactions at kilometer and smaller scales, allowing an explicit representation of the main drivers of the flow of energy and matter by solving the underlying equations.
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.
Marco A. Giorgetta, William Sawyer, Xavier Lapillonne, Panagiotis Adamidis, Dmitry Alexeev, Valentin Clément, Remo Dietlicher, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Henning Franke, Claudia Frauen, Walter M. Hannah, Benjamin R. Hillman, Luis Kornblueh, Philippe Marti, Matthew R. Norman, Robert Pincus, Sebastian Rast, Daniel Reinert, Reiner Schnur, Uwe Schulzweida, and Bjorn Stevens
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6985–7016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6985-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6985-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents a first version of the ICON atmosphere model that works not only on CPUs, but also on GPUs. This GPU-enabled ICON version is benchmarked on two GPU machines and a CPU machine. While the weak scaling is very good on CPUs and GPUs, the strong scaling is poor on GPUs. But the high performance of GPU machines allowed for first simulations of a short period of the quasi-biennial oscillation at very high resolution with explicit convection and gravity wave forcing.
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.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
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.
Bettina K. Gier, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Models from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 5 and 6 are compared to a satellite data product of column-averaged CO2 mole fractions (XCO2). The previously believed discrepancy of the negative trend in seasonal cycle amplitude in the satellite product, which is not seen in in situ data nor in the models, is attributed to a sampling characteristic. Furthermore, CMIP6 models are shown to have made progress in reproducing the observed XCO2 time series compared to CMIP5.
Cited articles
Baldwin, M. P., Ayarzagüena, B., Birner, T., Butchart, N., Butler, A. H., Charlton‐Perez, A. J., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I., Garny, H., Gerber, E. P., Hegglin, M. I., Langematz, U., and Pedatella, N. M.: Sudden Stratospheric Warmings, Rev. Geophys., 59, e2020RG000708, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020rg000708, 2021. a
Bonnet, P.: Paulinebonnet111/bonnet24_gmd_automatic_tuning_ atm_paper: Automatic tuning code after 1st review (Version Dec2024), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14267203, 2024. (code is also available at: https://github.com/EyringMLClimateGroup/bonnet24gmd_automatic_tuning_atm, last access: 17 June 2025) a, b
Cleary, E., Garbuno-Inigo, A., Lan, S., Schneider, T., and Stuart, A. M.: Calibrate, emulate, sample, J. Comput. Phys., 424, 109716, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109716, 2021. a, b
Couvreux, F., Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Roehrig, R., Volodina, V., Villefranque, N., Rio, C., Audouin, O., Salter, J., Bazile, E., Brient, F., Favot, F., Honnert, R., Lefebvre, M.-P., Madeleine, J.-B., Rodier, Q., and Xu, W.: Process-Based Climate Model Development Harnessing Machine Learning: I. A Calibration Tool for Parameterization Improvement, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 13, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002217, 2021. a, b
Crueger, T., Giorgetta, M. A., Brokopf, R., Esch, M., Fiedler, S., Hohenegger, C., Kornblueh, L., Mauritsen, T., Nam, C., Naumann, A. K., Peters, K., Rast, S., Roeckner, E., Sakradzija, M., Schmidt, H., Vial, J., Vogel, R., and Stevens, B.: ICON-A, The Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: II. Model Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1638–1662, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017ms001233, 2018. a, b, c
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge‐Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J., Park, B., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J., 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. a, b
Domeisen, D. I., Butler, A. H., Charlton‐Perez, A. J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M. P., Dunn‐Sigouin, E., Furtado, J. C., Garfinkel, C. I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A. L., Lim, E., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C., Simpson, I. R., Son, S., and Taguchi, M.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 1. Predictability of the Stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030920, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030920, 2020a. a
Domeisen, D. I. V., Butler, A. H., Charlton‐Perez, A. J., Ayarzagüena, B., Baldwin, M. P., Dunn‐Sigouin, E., Furtado, J. C., Garfinkel, C. I., Hitchcock, P., Karpechko, A. Y., Kim, H., Knight, J., Lang, A. L., Lim, E., Marshall, A., Roff, G., Schwartz, C., Simpson, I. R., Son, S., and Taguchi, M.: The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 2. Predictability Arising From Stratosphere‐Troposphere Coupling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030923, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030923, 2020b. a
Dunbar, O. R. A., Garbuno-Inigo, A., Schneider, T., and Stuart, A. M.: Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Convective Parameters in an Idealized GCM, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 13, e2020MS002454, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002454, 2021. a
Fletcher, C. G., McNally, W., Virgin, J. G., and King, F.: Toward Efficient Calibration of Higher‐Resolution Earth System Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2021MS002836, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002836, 2022. a
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D., Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0758.1, 2017. a
Gentine, P., Eyring, V., and Beucler, T.: Deep Learning for the Parametrization of Subgrid Processes in Climate Models, in: Chap. 21, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, 307–314, ISBN 9781119646181, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119646181.ch21, 2021. a
Giorgetta, M. A., Brokopf, R., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fiedler, S., Helmert, J., Hohenegger, C., Kornblueh, L., Köhler, M., Manzini, E., Mauritsen, T., Nam, C., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Reinert, D., Sakradzija, M., Schmidt, H., Schneck, R., Schnur, R., Silvers, L., Wan, H., Zängl, G., and Stevens, B.: ICON-A, the Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: I. Model Description, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1613–1637, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017ms001242, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, ab, ac
Grisel, O., Mueller, A. L., Gramfort, A., Louppe, G., Prettenhofer, P., Fan, T. J., Blondel, M., Niculae, V., Nothman, J., Joly, A., Lemaitre, G., Vanderplas, J., Estève, L., Kumar, M., du Boisberranger, J., Qin, H., Hug, N., Varoquaux, N., … Woolam, C.: scikit-learn/scikit-learn: Scikit-learn 1.2.2 (1.2.2), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7711792, 2023. a, b, c
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-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., Chiara, G. D., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Balaji, V., Duan, Q., Folini, D., Ji, D., Klocke, D., Qian, Y., Rauser, F., Rio, C., Tomassini, L., Watanabe, M., and Williamson, D.: The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 589–602, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-15-00135.1, 2017. a, b, c, d
Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Rio, C., Couvreux, F., Roehrig, R., Villefranque, N., Musat, I., Fairhead, L., Diallo, F. B., and Volodina, V.: Process-Based Climate Model Development Harnessing Machine Learning: II. Model Calibration From Single Column to Global, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 13, e2020MS002225, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002225, 2021. a, b, c
Hourdin, F., Ferster, B., Deshayes, J., Mignot, J., Musat, I., and Williamson, D.: Toward machine-assisted tuning avoiding the underestimation of uncertainty in climate change projections, Sci. Adv., 9, eadf2758, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adf2758, 2023. a, b, c
Iturbide, M., Gutiérrez, J. M., Alves, L. M., Bedia, J., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cimadevilla, E., Cofiño, A. S., Luca, A. D., Faria, S. H., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Hauser, M., Herrera, S., Hennessy, K., Hewitt, H. T., Jones, R. G., Krakovska, S., Manzanas, R., Martínez-Castro, D., Narisma, G. T., Nurhati, I. S., Pinto, I., Seneviratne, S. I., van den Hurk, B., and Vera, C. S.: An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: definition and aggregated datasets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2959–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2959-2020, 2020. a, b
Jorge Nocedal, S. J. W.: Numerical Optimization, Springer, New York, ISBN 9780387303031, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5, 2006. a
Jungclaus, J. H., Lorenz, S. J., Schmidt, H., Brovkin, V., Brüggemann, N., Chegini, F., Crüger, T., De-Vrese, P., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M. A., Gutjahr, O., Haak, H., Hagemann, S., Hanke, M., Ilyina, T., Korn, P., Kröger, J., Linardakis, L., Mehlmann, C., Mikolajewicz, U., Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Notz, D., Pohlmann, H., Putrasahan, D. A., Raddatz, T., Ramme, L., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Riddick, T., Sam, T., Schneck, R., Schnur, R., Schupfner, M., Storch, J.-S., Wachsmann, F., Wieners, K.-H., Ziemen, F., Stevens, B., Marotzke, J., and Claussen, M.: The ICON Earth System Model Version 1.0, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2021MS002813, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002813, 2022. a
Karlsson, K.-G., Anttila, K., Trentmann, J., Stengel, M., Solodovnik, I., Meirink, J. F., Devasthale, A., Kothe, S., Jääskeläinen, E., Sedlar, J., Benas, N., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Stein, D., Finkensieper, S., Håkansson, N., Hollmann, R., Kaiser, J., and Werscheck, M.: CLARA-A2.1: CM SAF cLoud, Albedo and surface RAdiation dataset from AVHRR data – Edition 2.1, EUMETSAT, https://doi.org/10.5676/EUM_SAF_CM/CLARA_AVHRR/V002_01, 2020. a, b
Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G., Doelling, D. R., Rutan, D. A., Caldwell, T. E., Yu, L., and Weller, R. A.: Surface Irradiances Consistent with CERES-Derived Top-of-Atmosphere Shortwave and Longwave Irradiances, J. Climate, 26, 2719–2740, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00436.1, 2013. a
Loeb, N. G., Wielicki, B. A., Doelling, D. R., Smith, G. L., Keyes, D. F., Kato, S., Manalo-Smith, N., and Wong, T.: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth's Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget, J. Climate, 22, 748–766, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2637.1, 2009. a
Loeppky, J. L., Sacks, J., and Welch, W. J.: Choosing the Sample Size of a Computer Experiment: A Practical Guide, Technometrics, 51, 366–376, https://doi.org/10.1198/tech.2009.08040, 2009. a, b
Mansfield, L. A. and Sheshadri, A.: Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of a Gravity Wave Parameterization: A Case Study of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in an Intermediate Complexity Climate Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2022MS003245, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ms003245, 2022. a
Mauritsen, T., Stevens, B., Roeckner, E., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Giorgetta, M., Haak, H., Jungclaus, J., Klocke, D., Matei, D., Mikolajewicz, U., Notz, D., Pincus, R., Schmidt, H., and Tomassini, L.: Tuning the climate of a global model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 4, M00A01, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012ms000154, 2012. a, b
Mignot, J., Hourdin, F., Deshayes, J., Boucher, O., Gastineau, G., Musat, I., Vancoppenolle, M., Servonnat, J., Caubel, A., Chéruy, F., Denvil, S., Dufresne, J.-L., Ethé, C., Fairhead, L., Foujols, M.-A., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Levavasseur, G., Marti, O., Menary, M., Rio, C., Rousset, C., and Silvy, Y.: The Tuning Strategy of IPSL-CM6A-LR, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 13, e2020MS002340, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002340, 2021. a
NASA/LARC/SD/ASDC: CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) TOA and Surface Monthly means data in netCDF Edition 4.1, https://doi.org/10.5067/TERRA-AQUA/CERES/EBAF_L3B.004.1, 2019. a
Rao, J., Garfinkel, C. I., White, I. P., and Schwartz, C.: The Southern Hemisphere Minor Sudden Stratospheric Warming in September 2019 and its Predictions in S2S Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032723, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032723, 2020. a
Rasmussen, C. E.: Gaussian processes for machine learning, MIT Press, ISBN 026218253X, https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/chapters/RW.pdf (last access: 8 August 2024), 2006. a
Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., and Tarantola, S.: Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index, Comput. Phys. Commun., 181, 259–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018, 2010. a, b
Schmidt, G. A., Bader, D., Donner, L. J., Elsaesser, G. S., Golaz, J.-C., Hannay, C., Molod, A., Neale, R. B., and Saha, S.: Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six US modeling centers, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3207–3223, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017, 2017. a
Stengel, M., Stapelberg, S., Sus, O., Schlundt, C., Poulsen, C., Thomas, G., Christensen, M., Carbajal Henken, C., Preusker, R., Fischer, J., Devasthale, A., Willén, U., Karlsson, K.-G., McGarragh, G. R., Proud, S., Povey, A. C., Grainger, R. G., Meirink, J. F., Feofilov, A., Bennartz, R., Bojanowski, J. S., and Hollmann, R.: Cloud property datasets retrieved from AVHRR, MODIS, AATSR and MERIS in the framework of the Cloud cci project, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 881–904, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-881-2017, 2017. a, b
Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., and Ziehn, T.: Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021. a
Tripathi, O. P., Baldwin, M., Charlton‐Perez, A., Charron, M., Eckermann, S. D., Gerber, E., Harrison, R. G., Jackson, D. R., Kim, B., Kuroda, Y., Lang, A., Mahmood, S., Mizuta, R., Roff, G., Sigmond, M., and Son, S.: The predictability of the extratropical stratosphere on monthly time‐scales and its impact on the skill of tropospheric forecasts, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 141, 987–1003, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2432, 2014. a
Watson-Parris, D., Williams, A., Deaconu, L., and Stier, P.: Model calibration using ESEm v1.1.0 – an open, scalable Earth system emulator, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7659–7672, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7659-2021, 2021. a, b
Williamson, D., Goldstein, M., Allison, L., Blaker, A., Challenor, P., Jackson, L., and Yamazaki, K.: History matching for exploring and reducing climate model parameter space using observations and a large perturbed physics ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 41, 1703–1729, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1896-4, 2013. a, b, c, d, e, f
Williamson, D. B., Blaker, A. T., and Sinha, B.: Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1789–1816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d
Zängl, G., Reinert, D., Rípodas, P., and Baldauf, M.: The ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) modelling frameworkof DWD and MPI-M: Description of the non-hydrostaticdynamical core, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 141, 563–579, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378, 2014. a, b, c, d
Zhang, T., Li, L., Lin, Y., Xue, W., Xie, F., Xu, H., and Huang, X.: An automatic and effective parameter optimization method for model tuning, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3579–3591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3579-2015, 2015. a
Short summary
Tuning a climate model means adjusting uncertain parameters in the model to best match observations like the global radiation balance and cloud cover. This is usually done by running many simulations of the model with different settings, which can be time-consuming and relies heavily on expert knowledge. To make this process faster and more objective, we developed a machine learning emulator to create a large ensemble and apply a method called history matching to find the best settings.
Tuning a climate model means adjusting uncertain parameters in the model to best match...
