Articles | Volume 17, issue 23
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020

Research article 08 Dec 2020

Research article | 08 Dec 2020

Spatially resolved evaluation of Earth system models with satellite column-averaged CO2

Bettina K. Gier et al.

Data sets

O4Mv3 XCO2 data product version 3 M. Reuter https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/satellite-carbon-dioxide?tab=form

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) GISTEMP Team https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

ISLSCP II MODIS (Collection 4) IGBP Land Cover M. A. Friedl, A. H. Strahler, J. Hodges, F. G. Hall, G. J. Collatz, B. W. Meeson, S. O. Los, E. Brown De Colstoun, and D. R. Landis https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/968

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from the NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network E. J. Dlugokencky, P. M. Lang, J. W. Mund, A. M. Crotwell, M. J. Crotwell, and K. W. Thoning ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/flask/surface/

ESMValTool (Version v2.0.0) Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov,N., Lauer, A., Mueller, B., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M.,Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Adeniyi, K., Arnone, E.,Bellprat, O., Berg, P., Bock, L., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Corti, S., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini,P., Deser, C., Diblen, F., Docquier, D., Dreyer, L., Ehbrecht,C., Earnshaw, P., Gier, B., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman,P., Hagemann, S., von Hardenberg, J., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Lledó, L., Lejeune, Q.,Lembo, V., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Lorenz, R., Lovato,T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Mohr, C. W., Amarjiit, P., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Russell, J., Sandstad, M., Sellar, A., Sen-ftleben, D., Serva, F., Sillmann, J., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R.,Torralba, V., and Weigel, K. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3401363

ESMValCore Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov, N., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Bock, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Smeets, S., Camphuijsen, J., Gier, B.K., Weigel, K., Hauser, M., Kalverla, P., Galytska, E., Cos-Espuña, P., Pelupessy, I., Koirala, S., Stacke, T., Alidoost, S., and Jury, M. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3387139

Download
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint