ArticleClimate dynamics2024
Validation of key Arctic energy and water budget components in CMIP6.
Article in Climate dynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigate historical simulations of relevant components of the Arctic energy and water budgets for 39 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models and validate them against observation-based estimates. We look at simulated seasonal cycles, long-term averages and trends of lateral transports and storage rates in atmosphere and ocean as well as vertical fluxes at top-of-atmosphere and the surface. We find large inter-model spreads and systematic biases in the representation of annual cycles and long-term averages. Surface freshwater fluxes associated with precipitation and evaporation as well as runoff from Arctic lands tend to be overestimated by most CMIP6 models and about two thirds of the analysed models feature an early timing bias of one month in the runoff cycle phase, related to an early snow melt bias and the lack of realistic river routing schemes. Further, large biases are found for oceanic volume transports, partly because data required for accurate oceanic transport computations has not been archived. Biases are also present in the simulated energy budget components. The net vertical energy flux out of the ocean at the Arctic surface as well as poleward oceanic heat transports are systematically underestimated by all models. We find strong anti-correlation between average oceanic heat transports and mean sea ice cover, atmospheric heat transports, and also the long-term ocean warming rate. The latter strongly suggests that accurate depiction of the mean state is a prerequisite for realistic projections of future warming of the Arctic. Our diagnostics also provide useful process-based metrics for model selection to constrain projections. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00382-024-07105-5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.