DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6

Abstract

The Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs) was initiated in 2010 to facilitate the use of observations in climate model evaluation and research, with a particular target being the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), a major initiative of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). To this end, Obs4MIPs (1) targets observed variables that can be compared to CMIP model variables; (2) utilizes dataset formatting specifications and metadata requirements closely aligned with CMIP model output; (3) provides brief technical documentation for each dataset, designed for nonexperts and tailored towards relevance for model evaluation, including information on uncertainty, dataset merits, and limitations; and (4) disseminates the data through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) platforms, making the observations searchable and accessible via the same portals as the model output. Taken together, these characteristics of the organization and structure of obs4MIPs should entice a more diverse community of researchers to engage in the comparison of model output with observations and to contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of the climate models. At present, the number of obs4MIPs datasets has grown to about 80; many are undergoing updates, with another 20 or so in preparation, and more than 100 are proposed and under consideration. A partial list ofmore » current global satellite-based datasets includes humidity and temperature profiles; a wide range of cloud and aerosol observations; ocean surface wind, temperature, height, and sea ice fraction; surface and top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave radiation; and ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) products. A partial list of proposed products expected to be useful in analyzing CMIP6 results includes the following: alternative products for the above quantities, additional products for ocean surface flux and chlorophyll products, a number of vegetation products (e.g., FAPAR, LAI, burned area fraction), ice sheet mass and height, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). While most existing obs4MIPs datasets consist of monthly-mean gridded data over the global domain, products with higher time resolution (e.g., daily) and/or regional products are now receiving more attention. Along with an increasing number of datasets, obs4MIPs has implemented a number of capability upgrades including (1) an updated obs4MIPs data specifications document that provides additional search facets and generally improves congruence with CMIP6 specifications for model datasets, (2) a set of six easily understood indicators that help guide users as to a dataset's maturity and suitability for application, and (3) an option to supply supplemental information about a dataset beyond what can be found in the standard metadata. With the maturation of the obs4MIPs framework, the dataset inclusion process, and the dataset formatting guidelines and resources, the scope of the observations being considered is expected to grow to include gridded in situ datasets as well as datasets with a regional focus, and the ultimate intent is to judiciously expand this scope to any observation dataset that has applicability for evaluation of the types of Earth system models used in CMIP.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [4]; ORCiD logo [3];  [5];  [6]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [7];  [8];  [9];  [8];  [4]; ORCiD logo [10];  [11];  [12];  [13] more »;  [10] « less
  1. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
  2. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  3. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC (United States)
  4. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD (United States)
  5. Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris (France)
  6. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO (United States)
  7. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen (Germany); Univ. of Bremen (Germany)
  8. European Space Agency, Harwell (United Kingdom)
  9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Washington, DC (United States)
  10. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva (Switzerland)
  11. Met Office, Exeter (United Kingdom)
  12. European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), Darmstadt (Germany)
  13. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading (United Kingdom)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); USDOE Office of Science (SC); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
OSTI Identifier:
1755817
Report Number(s):
LLNL-JRNL-795464
Journal ID: ISSN 1991-9603; 996647
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-07NA27344; NA14NES432003
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Geoscientific Model Development (Online)
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Geoscientific Model Development (Online); Journal Volume: 13; Journal Issue: 7; Journal ID: ISSN 1991-9603
Publisher:
European Geosciences Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Waliser, Duane, Gleckler, Peter J., Ferraro, Robert, Taylor, Karl E., Ames, Sasha, Biard, James, Bosilovich, Michael G., Brown, Otis, Chepfer, Helene, Cinquini, Luca, Durack, Paul J., Eyring, Veronika, Mathieu, Pierre-Philippe, Lee, Tsengdar, Pinnock, Simon, Potter, Gerald L., Rixen, Michel, Saunders, Roger, Schulz, Jörg, Thépaut, Jean-Noël, and Tuma, Matthias. Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6. United States: N. p., 2020. Web. doi:10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020.
Waliser, Duane, Gleckler, Peter J., Ferraro, Robert, Taylor, Karl E., Ames, Sasha, Biard, James, Bosilovich, Michael G., Brown, Otis, Chepfer, Helene, Cinquini, Luca, Durack, Paul J., Eyring, Veronika, Mathieu, Pierre-Philippe, Lee, Tsengdar, Pinnock, Simon, Potter, Gerald L., Rixen, Michel, Saunders, Roger, Schulz, Jörg, Thépaut, Jean-Noël, & Tuma, Matthias. Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6. United States. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020
Waliser, Duane, Gleckler, Peter J., Ferraro, Robert, Taylor, Karl E., Ames, Sasha, Biard, James, Bosilovich, Michael G., Brown, Otis, Chepfer, Helene, Cinquini, Luca, Durack, Paul J., Eyring, Veronika, Mathieu, Pierre-Philippe, Lee, Tsengdar, Pinnock, Simon, Potter, Gerald L., Rixen, Michel, Saunders, Roger, Schulz, Jörg, Thépaut, Jean-Noël, and Tuma, Matthias. Tue . "Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6". United States. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1755817.
@article{osti_1755817,
title = {Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6},
author = {Waliser, Duane and Gleckler, Peter J. and Ferraro, Robert and Taylor, Karl E. and Ames, Sasha and Biard, James and Bosilovich, Michael G. and Brown, Otis and Chepfer, Helene and Cinquini, Luca and Durack, Paul J. and Eyring, Veronika and Mathieu, Pierre-Philippe and Lee, Tsengdar and Pinnock, Simon and Potter, Gerald L. and Rixen, Michel and Saunders, Roger and Schulz, Jörg and Thépaut, Jean-Noël and Tuma, Matthias},
abstractNote = {The Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs) was initiated in 2010 to facilitate the use of observations in climate model evaluation and research, with a particular target being the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), a major initiative of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). To this end, Obs4MIPs (1) targets observed variables that can be compared to CMIP model variables; (2) utilizes dataset formatting specifications and metadata requirements closely aligned with CMIP model output; (3) provides brief technical documentation for each dataset, designed for nonexperts and tailored towards relevance for model evaluation, including information on uncertainty, dataset merits, and limitations; and (4) disseminates the data through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) platforms, making the observations searchable and accessible via the same portals as the model output. Taken together, these characteristics of the organization and structure of obs4MIPs should entice a more diverse community of researchers to engage in the comparison of model output with observations and to contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of the climate models. At present, the number of obs4MIPs datasets has grown to about 80; many are undergoing updates, with another 20 or so in preparation, and more than 100 are proposed and under consideration. A partial list of current global satellite-based datasets includes humidity and temperature profiles; a wide range of cloud and aerosol observations; ocean surface wind, temperature, height, and sea ice fraction; surface and top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave radiation; and ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) products. A partial list of proposed products expected to be useful in analyzing CMIP6 results includes the following: alternative products for the above quantities, additional products for ocean surface flux and chlorophyll products, a number of vegetation products (e.g., FAPAR, LAI, burned area fraction), ice sheet mass and height, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). While most existing obs4MIPs datasets consist of monthly-mean gridded data over the global domain, products with higher time resolution (e.g., daily) and/or regional products are now receiving more attention. Along with an increasing number of datasets, obs4MIPs has implemented a number of capability upgrades including (1) an updated obs4MIPs data specifications document that provides additional search facets and generally improves congruence with CMIP6 specifications for model datasets, (2) a set of six easily understood indicators that help guide users as to a dataset's maturity and suitability for application, and (3) an option to supply supplemental information about a dataset beyond what can be found in the standard metadata. With the maturation of the obs4MIPs framework, the dataset inclusion process, and the dataset formatting guidelines and resources, the scope of the observations being considered is expected to grow to include gridded in situ datasets as well as datasets with a regional focus, and the ultimate intent is to judiciously expand this scope to any observation dataset that has applicability for evaluation of the types of Earth system models used in CMIP.},
doi = {10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020},
journal = {Geoscientific Model Development (Online)},
number = 7,
volume = 13,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Jul 07 00:00:00 EDT 2020},
month = {Tue Jul 07 00:00:00 EDT 2020}
}

Works referenced in this record:

COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment
journal, August 2011

  • Bodas-Salcedo, A.; Webb, M. J.; Bony, S.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 92, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1

The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation
journal, November 2018

  • Collier, Nathan; Hoffman, Forrest M.; Lawrence, David M.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 10, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018MS001354

Metrics for the Diurnal Cycle of Precipitation: Toward Routine Benchmarks for Climate Models
journal, June 2016

  • Covey, Curt; Gleckler, Peter J.; Doutriaux, Charles
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 29, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0664.1

Toward Standardized Data Sets for Climate Model Experimentation
journal, July 2018


Global chemistry-climate modeling and evaluation
journal, December 2012

  • Eyring, Veronika; Lamarque, Jean-Francois
  • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 93, Issue 51
  • DOI: 10.1029/2012EO510012

Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization
journal, January 2016

  • Eyring, Veronika; Bony, Sandrine; Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

Towards improved and more routine Earth system model evaluation in CMIP
journal, January 2016

  • Eyring, Veronika; Gleckler, Peter J.; Heinze, Christoph
  • Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 7, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.5194/esd-7-813-2016

ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP
journal, January 2016

  • Eyring, Veronika; Righi, Mattia; Lauer, Axel
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016

Evolving Obs4MIPs to Support Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)
journal, August 2015

  • Ferraro, Robert; Waliser, Duane E.; Gleckler, Peter
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 96, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00216.1

AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project
journal, December 1992


Performance metrics for climate models
journal, January 2008

  • Gleckler, P. J.; Taylor, K. E.; Doutriaux, C.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 113, Issue D6
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007JD008972

Improving use of satellite data in evaluating climate models
journal, May 2011

  • Gleckler, Peter; Ferraro, Robert; Waliser, Duane
  • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 92, Issue 20
  • DOI: 10.1029/2011EO200005

A More Powerful Reality Test for Climate Models
journal, May 2016


The ESA Climate Change Initiative: Satellite Data Records for Essential Climate Variables
journal, October 2013

  • Hollmann, R.; Merchant, C. J.; Saunders, R.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 94, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00254.1

The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)
journal, January 2020

  • Juckes, Martin; Taylor, Karl E.; Durack, Paul J.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 13, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020

Regional Climate Model Evaluation System powered by Apache Open Climate Workbench v1.3.0: an enabling tool for facilitating regional climate studies
journal, January 2018

  • Lee, Huikyo; Goodman, Alexander; McGibbney, Lewis
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-11-4435-2018

THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research
journal, September 2007

  • Meehl, Gerald A.; Covey, Curt; Delworth, Thomas
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 88, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383

Evaluating Modes of Variability in Climate Models
journal, December 2014

  • Phillips, Adam S.; Deser, Clara; Fasullo, John
  • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 95, Issue 49
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014EO490002

Enabling Reanalysis Research Using the Collaborative Reanalysis Technical Environment (CREATE)
journal, April 2018

  • Potter, Gerald L.; Carriere, Laura; Hertz, Judy
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 99, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0174.1

How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
journal, March 2008

  • Reichler, Thomas; Kim, Junsu
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 89, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303

Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview
journal, January 2020

  • Righi, Mattia; Andela, Bouwe; Eyring, Veronika
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 13, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020

The GEWEX Water Vapor Assessment: Overview and Introduction to Results and Recommendations
journal, January 2019

  • Schröder, Marc; Lockhoff, Maarit; Shi, Lei
  • Remote Sensing, Vol. 11, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.3390/rs11030251

CMIP6 Data Citation of Evolving Data
journal, June 2017

  • Stockhause, Martina; Lautenschlager, Michael
  • Data Science Journal, Vol. 16
  • DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2017-030

CMIP5 Scientific Gaps and Recommendations for CMIP6
journal, January 2017

  • Stouffer, R. J.; Eyring, V.; Meehl, G. A.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00013.1

An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
journal, April 2012

  • Taylor, Karl E.; Stouffer, Ronald J.; Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 93, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1

Satellite Observations for CMIP5: The Genesis of Obs4MIPs
journal, September 2014

  • Teixeira, Joao; Waliser, Duane; Ferraro, Robert
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 95, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00204.1

The Double‐ITCZ Bias in CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 Models Based on Annual Mean Precipitation
journal, April 2020

  • Tian, Baijun; Dong, Xinyu
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1029/2020GL087232

Global water cycle agreement in the climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4: IPCC AR4 GLOBAL WATER CYCLE MODELS
journal, August 2007

  • Waliser, D.; Seo, K. -W.; Schubert, S.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030675

Cloud ice: A climate model challenge with signs and expectations of progress
journal, January 2009

  • Waliser, Duane E.; Li, Jui-Lin F.; Woods, Christopher P.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008JD010015

The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6
journal, January 2017

  • Webb, Mark J.; Andrews, Timothy; Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 10, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017

A Global Repository for Planet-Sized Experiments and Observations
journal, May 2016

  • Williams, Dean N.; Balaji, V.; Cinquini, Luca
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 97, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00132.1