Articles | Volume 9, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2771-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2771-2016
Model evaluation paper
 | 
23 Aug 2016
Model evaluation paper |  | 23 Aug 2016

The impact of changing the land surface scheme in ACCESS(v1.0/1.1) on the surface climatology

Eva A. Kowalczyk, Lauren E. Stevens, Rachel M. Law, Ian N. Harman, Martin Dix, Charmaine N. Franklin, and Ying-Ping Wang

Related authors

Representing high-latitude deep carbon in the pre-industrial state of the ORCHIDEE-MICT land surface model (r8704)
Yi Xi, Philippe Ciais, Dan Zhu, Chunjing Qiu, Yuan Zhang, Shushi Peng, Gustaf Hugelius, Simon P. K. Bowring, Daniel S. Goll, and Ying-Ping Wang
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-206,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-206, 2025
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
AERA-MIP: emission pathways, remaining budgets, and carbon cycle dynamics compatible with 1.5 and 2 °C global warming stabilization
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
An ensemble estimate of Australian soil organic carbon using machine learning and process-based modelling
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, and Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel
SOIL, 10, 619–636, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, 2024
Short summary
Biogeochemical versus biogeophysical temperature effects of historical land-use change in CMIP6
Amali A. Amali, Clemens Schwingshackl, Akihiko Ito, Alina Barbu, Christine Delire, Daniele Peano, David M. Lawrence, David Wårlind, Eddy Robertson, Edouard L. Davin, Elena Shevliakova, Ian N. Harman, Nicolas Vuichard, Paul A. Miller, Peter J. Lawrence, Tilo Ziehn, Tomohiro Hajima, Victor Brovkin, Yanwu Zhang, Vivek K. Arora, and Julia Pongratz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2460,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2460, 2024
Short summary
The Southern Ocean as the climate's freight train – driving ongoing global warming under zero-emission scenarios with ACCESS-ESM1.5
Matthew A. Chamberlain, Tilo Ziehn, and Rachel M. Law
Biogeosciences, 21, 3053–3073, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3053-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3053-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Abramowitz, G.: Towards a public, standardized, diagnostic benchmarking system for land surface models, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 819–827, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-819-2012, 2012.
Abramowitz, G., Leuning, R., Clark, M., and Pitman, A.: Evaluating the Performance of Land Surface Models, J. Climate, 21, 5468–5481, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2378.1, 2008.
Baldocchi, D., Falge, E., Gu, L., Olson, R., Hollinger, D., Running, S., Anthoni, P., Bernhofer, C., Davis, K., Evans, R., Fuentes, J., Goldstein, A., Katul, G., Law, B., Lee, X., Malhi, Y., Meyers, T., Munger, W., Oechel, W., Paw U, K. T., Pilegaard, K., Schmid, H. P., Valentini, R., Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K., and Wofsy, S.: FLUXNET: A New Tool to Study the Temporal and Spatial Variability of Ecosystem-Scale Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Flux Densities, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 2415–2434, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2, 2001.
Baumgartner, A. and Reichel, E.: The World Water Balance, Mean Annual Global, Continental and Maritime Precipitation, Evaporation and Run-off, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam – Oxford – New York, 1975.
Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Rudolf, B., Schamm, K., Schneider, U., and Ziese, M.: A description of the global land-surface precipitation data products of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre with sample applications including centennial (trend) analysis from 1901–present, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 71–99, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-71-2013, 2013.
Download
Short summary
This paper compares two ACCESS model versions that differ only in their land surface scheme. Differences in the simulated present-day climate are attributed to differences in the representation of various land surface processes.
Share