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

Towards resolving poor performance of mechanistic soil organic carbon models
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, Philippe Ciais, and Daniel S. Goll
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
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
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 803–840, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, 2025
Short summary
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
Revised manuscript accepted 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

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Process-based modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management at the regional scale: integrating rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Yan Bo, Hao Liang, Tao Li, and Feng Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3799–3817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, 2025
Short summary
Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration
Carolina A. Bieri, Francina Dominguez, Gonzalo Miguez-Macho, and Ying Fan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3755–3779, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, 2025
Short summary
Reducing time and computing costs in EC-Earth: an automatic load-balancing approach for coupled Earth system models
Sergi Palomas, Mario C. Acosta, Gladys Utrera, and Etienne Tourigny
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3661–3679, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, 2025
Short summary
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 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