Articles | Volume 17, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020
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, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Veronika Eyring

Related authors

Representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in CMIP6
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
Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP
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
Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for emergent constraints and future projections from Earth system models in CMIP
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP
Veronika Eyring, Lisa Bock, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Omar Bellprat, Björn Brötz, Louis-Philippe Caron, Nuno Carvalhais, Irene Cionni, Nicola Cortesi, Bas Crezee, Edouard L. Davin, Paolo Davini, Kevin Debeire, Lee de Mora, Clara Deser, David Docquier, Paul Earnshaw, Carsten Ehbrecht, Bettina K. Gier, Nube Gonzalez-Reviriego, Paul Goodman, Stefan Hagemann, Steven Hardiman, Birgit Hassler, Alasdair Hunter, Christopher Kadow, Stephan Kindermann, Sujan Koirala, Nikolay Koldunov, Quentin Lejeune, Valerio Lembo, Tomas Lovato, Valerio Lucarini, François Massonnet, Benjamin Müller, Amarjiit Pandde, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Adam Phillips, Valeriu Predoi, Joellen Russell, Alistair Sellar, Federico Serva, Tobias Stacke, Ranjini Swaminathan, Verónica Torralba, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, Katja Weigel, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeochemistry: Greenhouse Gases
Intercomparison of biogenic CO2 flux models in four urban parks in the city of Zurich
Stavros Stagakis, Dominik Brunner, Junwei Li, Leif Backman, Anni Karvonen, Lionel Constantin, Leena Järvi, Minttu Havu, Jia Chen, Sophie Emberger, and Liisa Kulmala
Biogeosciences, 22, 2133–2161, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2133-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2133-2025, 2025
Short summary
CO2 flux characteristics of the open savanna and its response to environmental factors in the dry–hot valley of Jinsha River, China
Chaolei Yang, Yufeng Tian, Jingqi Cui, Guangxiong He, Jingyuan Li, Canfeng Li, Haichuang Duan, Zong Wei, Liu Yan, Xin Xia, Yong Huang, Aihua Jiang, and Yuwen Feng
Biogeosciences, 22, 2097–2114, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2097-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2097-2025, 2025
Short summary
Rising Arctic seas and thawing permafrost: uncovering the carbon cycle impact in a thermokarst lagoon system in the outer Mackenzie Delta, Canada
Maren Jenrich, Juliane Wolter, Susanne Liebner, Christian Knoblauch, Guido Grosse, Fiona Giebeler, Dustin Whalen, and Jens Strauss
Biogeosciences, 22, 2069–2086, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2069-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2069-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modelling decadal trends and the impact of extreme events on carbon fluxes in a temperate deciduous forest using a terrestrial biosphere model
Tea Thum, Tuuli Miinalainen, Outi Seppälä, Holly Croft, Cheryl Rogers, Ralf Staebler, Silvia Caldararu, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 22, 1781–1807, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1781-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1781-2025, 2025
Short summary
Surface CO2 gradients challenge conventional CO2 emission quantification in lentic water bodies under calm conditions
Patrick Aurich, Uwe Spank, and Matthias Koschorreck
Biogeosciences, 22, 1697–1709, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1697-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1697-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Adachi, Y., Yukimoto, S., Deushi, M., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Tanaka, T. Y., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara, M., Shindo, E., Tsujino, H., Mizuta, R., Yabu, S., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: Basic performance of a new earth system model of the Meteorological Research Institute (MRI-ESM1), Pap. Meteorol. Geophys., 64, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.2467/mripapers.64.1, 2013. 
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R., and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models, J. Climate, 26, 6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-12-00417.1, 2013. 
Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L., Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gl046270, 2011. 
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.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint