Articles | Volume 17, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-81-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-81-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
14 Jan 2026
Research article |
| 14 Jan 2026
| 14 Jan 2026
Characteristics of agricultural droughts in CMIP6 historical simulations and future projections
Lukas Lindenlaub
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), Bremen, Germany
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Katja Weigel
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), Bremen, Germany
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Birgit Hassler
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Colin Jones
National Centre for Atmospheric Science and School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9TJ, United Kingdom
Veronika Eyring
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), Bremen, Germany
Related authors
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, Sandro Vattioni, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 17819–17844, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17819-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17819-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then examined the relations between ozone response and changes in temperature and circulation to identify the drivers of ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated through offline calculations and by comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone–climate interactions are important for Earth system models and thus should be considered in future model development.
Alex C. Ruane, Charlotte L. Pascoe, Claas Teichmann, David J. Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Ibrahima Diouf, Jesus Fernandez, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, Birgit Hassler, Vanessa Hernaman, Ulas Im, Doroteaciro Iovino, Martin Juckes, Iréne L. Lake, Timothy Lam, Xiaomao Lin, Jiafu Mao, Negin Nazarian, Sylvie Parey, Indrani Roy, Wan-Ling Tseng, Briony Turner, Andrew Wiebe, Lei Zhao, and Damaris Zurell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 9497–9540, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-9497-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes how the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project organized its 7th phase (CMIP7) to encourage the production of Earth system model outputs relevant for impacts and adaptation. Community engagement identified 13 opportunities for application across human and natural systems, 60 variable groups and 539 unique variables. We also show how simulations can more efficiently meet applications needs by targeting appropriate resolution, time slices, experiments and variable groups.
Katharina Hafner, Sara Shamekh, Guillaume Bertoli, Axel Lauer, Robert Pincus, Julien Savre, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Most climate models cannot resolve clouds and cloud-radiation interactions at coarse horizontal resolutions of about 100 km, which introduces uncertainties. High-resolution models resolve clouds better but are expensive to run. We use short high-resolution simulations and artificial intelligence to learn the cloud-radiation interactions without making any assumptions about the small scales. We propose a new method that significantly reduces cloud related errors.
Diajeng W. Atmojo, Katja Weigel, Arthur Grundner, Marika M. Holland, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
This study improves the sea ice albedo parametrisation in the Finite-Element Sea Ice Model by discovering an equation using symbolic regression, an interpretable machine learning method. Leveraging satellite and reanalyses data, our discovered equation identifies high sensitivity to thin snow and the weighted temperature difference between sea ice surface and 2 m air as critical to determine sea ice albedo. Our findings contribute to improving Arctic climate projections and understanding.
Evgenia Galytska, Birgit Hassler, Carlo Arosio, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Sandip S. Dhomse, Kimberlee Dubé, Wuhu Feng, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Jakob Runge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6426983/v2, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6426983/v2, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We explored how chemical and dynamical processes shape ozone in the tropical middle stratosphere. Using a method that identifies cause and effect with satellite data and a chemistry-transport model, we found that from 2004–2011 nitrous oxide quickly affected nitrogen dioxide and ozone, while from 2012–2018 this effect was delayed, weakening ozone loss. Large-scale winds also influenced this link, clarifying how different mechanisms control ozone.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for prediction and projection; characterization, attribution, and process understanding; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Robin S. Smith, Tarkan A. Bilge, Thomas J. Bracegirdle, Paul R. Holland, Till Kuhlbrodt, Charlotte Lang, Spencer Liddicoat, Tom Mitcham, Jane Mulcahy, Kaitlin A. Naughten, Andrew Orr, Julien Palmieri, Antony J. Payne, Steven Rumbold, Marc Stringer, Ranjini Swaminathan, Sarah Taylor, Jeremy Walton, and Colin Jones
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4476, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4476, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a dangerous amount of uncertainty in our predictions of climate change in polar regions because some of feedbacks that might lead to changes that are too rapid for us to adapt to, or that cannot be reversed. We have run a set of simulations with a state-of-the-art Earth System Model that helps improve our understanding of how climate in these regions might change. Some of the aspects we investigate are reversible but many are not, especially those affecting ice sheets and sea level.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Tereza Jarníková, Colin Jones, Steven Rumbold, and Corinne Le Quéré
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3374, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3374, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Southern Ocean winds drive global climate and have strengthened since 1980 due to Antarctic ozone depletion. We assessed which climate reconstructions best capture these changes using sea level pressure observations. We then used an Earth system model to attribute these changes between ozone and greenhouse gas emissions. Ozone depletion dominated past wind acceleration, but greenhouse gases will drive future changes after 2050.
Yue Li, Gang Tang, Eleanor O’Rourke, Samar Minallah, Martim Mas e Braga, Sophie Nowicki, Robin S. Smith, David M. Lawrence, George C. Hurtt, Daniele Peano, Gesa Meyer, Birgit Hassler, Jiafu Mao, Yongkang Xue, and Martin Juckes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3207, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land and Land Ice Theme Opportunities describe a list that contains 25 variable groups with 716 variables, which are potentially available to the broad scientific audience for performing analysis in land-atmosphere coupling, hydrological processes and freshwater systems, glacier and ice sheet mass balance and their influence on the sea levels, land use, and plant phenology.
Mara Y. McPartland, Tomas Lovato, Charles D. Koven, Jamie D. Wilson, Briony Turner, Colleen M. Petrik, José Licón-Saláiz, Fang Li, Fanny Lhardy, Jaclyn Clement Kinney, Michio Kawamiya, Birgit Hassler, Nathan P. Gillett, Cheikh Modou Noreyni Fall, Christopher Danek, Chris M. Brierley, Ana Bastos, and Oliver Andrews
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3246, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an international consortium of climate modeling groups that produce coordinated experiments in order to evaluate human influence on the climate and test knowledge of Earth systems. This paper describes the data requested for Earth systems research in CMIP7. We detail the request for model output of the carbon cycle, the flows of energy among the atmosphere, land and the oceans, and interactions between these and the global climate.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Jörg Benke, Ruth Comer, Birgit Hassler, Emma Hogan, Peter Kalverla, Axel Lauer, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Francesco Nattino, Patrick Peglar, Valeriu Predoi, Stef Smeets, Stephen Worsley, Martin Yeo, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4009–4021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models. Here, we describe recent significant improvements of ESMValTool’s computational efficiency including parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing. Evaluations with the enhanced version of ESMValTool are faster, use less computational resources, and can handle input data larger than the available memory.
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tuning a climate model means adjusting uncertain parameters in the model to best match observations like the global radiation balance and cloud cover. This is usually done by running many simulations of the model with different settings, which can be time-consuming and relies heavily on expert knowledge. To make this process faster and more objective, we developed a machine learning emulator to create a large ensemble and apply a method called history matching to find the best settings.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
Aytaç Paçal, Birgit Hassler, Katja Weigel, Miguel-Ángel Fernández-Torres, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are among the deadliest natural hazards, yet their causes and changes over time are not fully understood. We analyzed European heatwaves using a machine learning method that detects atmospheric patterns from these data. Our findings show that recent summer heatwaves differ from historical ones, indicating a shift in atmospheric dynamics consistent with climate change. This approach improves our understanding of the temporal evolution of heatwaves.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Kevin Debeire, Lisa Bock, Peer Nowack, Jakob Runge, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 607–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current climate models still have large uncertainties, especially over land. This study presents a new method to improve precipitation projections by identifying which models best capture key climate patterns. By giving more weight to models that better represent these patterns, our approach leads to more reliable future precipitation projections over land.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
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
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Arndt Kaps, Axel Lauer, Rémi Kazeroni, Martin Stengel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3001–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CCClim displays observations of clouds in terms of cloud classes that have been in use for a long time. CCClim is a machine-learning-powered product based on multiple existing observational products from different satellites. We show that the cloud classes in CCClim are physically meaningful and can be used to study cloud characteristics in more detail. The goal of this is to make real-world clouds more easily understandable to eventually improve the simulation of clouds in climate models.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Gerald A. Meehl, Jakob Runge, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 689–715, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores Atlantic–Pacific interactions and their response to external factors. Causal analysis of 1950–2014 data reveals a shift from a Pacific- to an Atlantic-driven regime. Contrasting impacts between El Niño and tropical Atlantic temperatures are highlighted, along with different pathways connecting the two oceans. The findings also suggest increasing remote contributions of forced Atlantic responses in modulating local Pacific responses during the most recent analyzed decades.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Michael Kiefer, Dale F. Hurst, Gabriele P. Stiller, Stefan Lossow, Holger Vömel, John Anderson, Faiza Azam, Jean-Loup Bertaux, Laurent Blanot, Klaus Bramstedt, John P. Burrows, Robert Damadeo, Bianca Maria Dinelli, Patrick Eriksson, Maya García-Comas, John C. Gille, Mark Hervig, Yasuko Kasai, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Donal Murtagh, Gerald E. Nedoluha, Stefan Noël, Piera Raspollini, William G. Read, Karen H. Rosenlof, Alexei Rozanov, Christopher E. Sioris, Takafumi Sugita, Thomas von Clarmann, Kaley A. Walker, and Katja Weigel
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4589–4642, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4589-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4589-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify biases and drifts (and their uncertainties) between the stratospheric water vapor measurement records of 15 satellite-based instruments (SATs, with 31 different retrievals) and balloon-borne frost point hygrometers (FPs) launched at 27 globally distributed stations. These comparisons of measurements during the period 2000–2016 are made using robust, consistent statistical methods. With some exceptions, the biases and drifts determined for most SAT–FP pairs are < 10 % and < 1 % yr−1.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Jakob Runge, Gerald A. Meehl, Adam S. Phillips, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 309–344, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a causal discovery method to evaluate the ability of climate models to represent the interactions between the Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) and the Pacific decadal variability (PDV). The approach and findings in this study present a powerful methodology that can be applied to a number of environment-related topics, offering tremendous insights to improve the understanding of the complex Earth system and the state of the art of climate modeling.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Bryan J. Johnson, Patrick Cullis, John Booth, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Glen McConville, Birgit Hassler, Gary A. Morris, Chance Sterling, and Samuel Oltmans
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3133–3146, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3133-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3133-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In 1986, soon after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, NOAA began year-round ozonesonde observations at South Pole Station to measure vertical profiles of ozone and temperature from the surface to 35 km. Balloon-borne ozonesondes launched at this unique site allow for tracking all phases of the yearly springtime ozone hole beginning in late winter and after sunrise, when rapid ozone depletion begins over the South Pole throughout the month of September.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool was designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows for reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that have not been reformatted before.
Antony Siahaan, Robin S. Smith, Paul R. Holland, Adrian Jenkins, Jonathan M. Gregory, Victoria Lee, Pierre Mathiot, Antony J. Payne, Jeff K. Ridley, and Colin G. Jones
The Cryosphere, 16, 4053–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4053-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4053-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The UK Earth System Model is the first to fully include interactions of the atmosphere and ocean with the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Under the low-greenhouse-gas SSP1–1.9 (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway) scenario, the ice sheet remains stable over the 21st century. Under the strong-greenhouse-gas SSP5–8.5 scenario, the model predicts strong increases in melting of large ice shelves and snow accumulation on the surface. The dominance of accumulation leads to a sea level fall at the end of the century.
William G. Read, Gabriele Stiller, Stefan Lossow, Michael Kiefer, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Dale Hurst, Holger Vömel, Karen Rosenlof, Bianca M. Dinelli, Piera Raspollini, Gerald E. Nedoluha, John C. Gille, Yasuko Kasai, Patrick Eriksson, Christopher E. Sioris, Kaley A. Walker, Katja Weigel, John P. Burrows, and Alexei Rozanov
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3377–3400, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper attempts to provide an assessment of the accuracy of 21 satellite-based instruments that remotely measure atmospheric humidity in the upper troposphere of the Earth's atmosphere. The instruments made their measurements from 1984 to the present time; however, most of these instruments began operations after 2000, and only a few are still operational. The objective of this study is to quantify the accuracy of each satellite humidity data set.
Catherine Hardacre, Jane P. Mulcahy, Richard J. Pope, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Can Li, Colin Johnson, and Steven T. Turnock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 18465–18497, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18465-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18465-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate UKESM1's ability to represent the sulfur (S) cycle in the recent historical period. The S cycle is a key driver of historical radiative forcing. Earth system models such as UKESM1 should represent the S cycle well so that we can have confidence in their projections of future climate. We compare UKESM1 to observations of sulfur compounds, finding that the model generally performs well. We also identify areas for UKESM1’s development, focussing on how SO2 is removed from the air.
Andrew Yool, Julien Palmiéri, Colin G. Jones, Lee de Mora, Till Kuhlbrodt, Ekatarina E. Popova, A. J. George Nurser, Joel Hirschi, Adam T. Blaker, Andrew C. Coward, Edward W. Blockley, and Alistair A. Sellar
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3437–3472, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean plays a key role in modulating the Earth’s climate. Understanding this role is critical when using models to project future climate change. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate their realism against the ocean's observed state. Here we validate UKESM1, a new Earth system model, focusing on the realism of its ocean physics and circulation, as well as its biological cycles and productivity. While we identify biases, generally the model performs well over a wide range of properties.
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
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
Michaela I. Hegglin, Susann Tegtmeier, John Anderson, Adam E. Bourassa, Samuel Brohede, Doug Degenstein, Lucien Froidevaux, Bernd Funke, John Gille, Yasuko Kasai, Erkki T. Kyrölä, Jerry Lumpe, Donal Murtagh, Jessica L. Neu, Kristell Pérot, Ellis E. Remsberg, Alexei Rozanov, Matthew Toohey, Joachim Urban, Thomas von Clarmann, Kaley A. Walker, Hsiang-Jui Wang, Carlo Arosio, Robert Damadeo, Ryan A. Fuller, Gretchen Lingenfelser, Christopher McLinden, Diane Pendlebury, Chris Roth, Niall J. Ryan, Christopher Sioris, Lesley Smith, and Katja Weigel
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 1855–1903, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1855-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1855-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
An overview of the SPARC Data Initiative is presented, to date the most comprehensive assessment of stratospheric composition measurements spanning 1979–2018. Measurements of 26 chemical constituents obtained from an international suite of space-based limb sounders were compiled into vertically resolved, zonal monthly mean time series. The quality and consistency of these gridded datasets are then evaluated using a climatological validation approach and a range of diagnostics.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Paul T. Griffiths, Lee T. Murray, Guang Zeng, Youngsub Matthew Shin, N. Luke Abraham, Alexander T. Archibald, Makoto Deushi, Louisa K. Emmons, Ian E. Galbally, Birgit Hassler, Larry W. Horowitz, James Keeble, Jane Liu, Omid Moeini, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Naga Oshima, David Tarasick, Simone Tilmes, Steven T. Turnock, Oliver Wild, Paul J. Young, and Prodromos Zanis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4187–4218, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse the CMIP6 Historical and future simulations for tropospheric ozone, a species which is important for many aspects of atmospheric chemistry. We show that the current generation of models agrees well with observations, being particularly successful in capturing trends in surface ozone and its vertical distribution in the troposphere. We analyse the factors that control ozone and show that they evolve over the period of the CMIP6 experiments.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Cited articles
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., Billows, C., Bock, L., Bodas-Salcedo, A., 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., Geddes, T., Gier, B., Gillett, E., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardacre, C., von Hardenberg, J., Hassler, B., Heuer, H., Hogan, E., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Kuehbacher, B., 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., Senftleben, D., Serva, F., Sillmann, J., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Tomkins, K., Torralba, V., Weigel, K., Sarauer, E., Roberts, C., Kalverla, P., Alidoost, S., Verhoeven, S., Vreede, B., Smeets, S., Soares Siqueira, A., Kazeroni, R., Potter, J., Winterstein, F., Beucher, R., Kraft, J., Ruhe, L., Bonnet, P., and Munday, G.: ESMValTool, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3401363, 2024. a
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., Jury, M., Sénési, S., Crocker, T., Vreede, B., Soares Siqueira, A., Kazeroni, R., Hohn, D., Bauer, J., Beucher, R., Benke, J., Martin-Martinez, E., Cammarano, D., Yousong, Z., Malinina, E., and Garcia Perdomo, K.: ESMValCore, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3387139, 2025. a, b
Bakke, S. J., Ionita, M., and Tallaksen, L. M.: Recent European Drying and Its Link to Prevailing Large-Scale Atmospheric Patterns, Scientific Reports, 13, 21921, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48861-4, 2023. a, b
Beguería, S. and Vicente-Serrano, S. M.: SPEI: Calculation of the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index, GitHub [code], https://github.com/sbegueria/SPEI (last access: 27 November 2025), 2023. a
Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F., and Latorre, B.: Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) Revisited: Parameter Fitting, Evapotranspiration Models, Tools, Datasets and Drought Monitoring, International Journal of Climatology, 34, 3001–3023, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3887, 2014. a
Berg, A., Sheffield, J., and Milly, P. C. D.: Divergent Surface and Total Soil Moisture Projections under Global Warming, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 236–244, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071921, 2017. a
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M.-A., Meurdesoif, Y., Cadule, P., Devilliers, M., Dupont, E., and Lurton, T.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1532, 2019. a
Byun, Y.-H., Lim, Y.-J., Shim, S., Sung, H. M., Sun, M., Kim, J., Kim, B.-H., Lee, J.-H., and Moon, H.: NIMS-KMA KACE1.0-G Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2242, 2019. a
Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/CDS.ADBB2D47, 2023. a, b
Dix, M., Bi, D., Dobrohotoff, P., Fiedler, R., Harman, I., Law, R., Mackallah, C., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Srbinovsky, J., Sullivan, A., Trenham, C., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Williams, G., Woodhouse, M., Bodman, R., Dias, F. B., Domingues, C. M., Hannah, N., Heerdegen, A., Savita, A., Wales, S., Allen, C., Druken, K., Evans, B., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S. M., Roberts, D., Smillie, J., Snow, K., Ward, M., and Yang, R.: CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2285, 2019. a
Dorigo, W., Preimesberger, W., Reimer, C., Van der Schalie, R., Pasik, A., De Jeu, R., and Paulik, C.: Soil moisture gridded data from 1978 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.d7782f18, 2019. a, b
EC-Earth: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3-Veg-LR Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.728, 2020. a
Ekström, M., Jones, P. D., Fowler, H. J., Lenderink, G., Buishand, T. A., and Conway, D.: Regional climate model data used within the SWURVE project – 1: projected changes in seasonal patterns and estimation of PET, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1069–1083, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1069-2007, 2007. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016a. a, b
Eyring, V., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wenzel, S., Jones, C., Anav, A., Andrews, O., Cionni, I., Davin, E. L., Deser, C., Ehbrecht, C., Friedlingstein, P., Gleckler, P., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Hagemann, S., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Krasting, J., Kunert, D., Levine, R., Loew, A., Mäkelä, J., Martin, G., Mason, E., Phillips, A. S., Read, S., Rio, C., Roehrig, R., Senftleben, D., Sterl, A., van Ulft, L. H., Walton, J., Wang, S., and Williams, K. D.: ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016b. a
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: 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, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020. a, b
Eyring, V., Gillett, N., Achuta Rao, K., Barimalala, R., Barreiro Parrillo, M., Bellouin, N., Cassou, C., Durack, P., Kosaka, Y., McGregor, S., Min, S., Morgenstern, O., and Sun, Y.: Human Influence on the Climate System, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., 423–552, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.005, 2021. a, b
Fan, J., McConkey, B., Wang, H., and Janzen, H.: Root Distribution by Depth for Temperate Agricultural Crops, Field Crops Research, 189, 68–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.013, 2016. a
García-Herrera, R., Garrido-Perez, J. M., Barriopedro, D., Ordóñez, C., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Nieto, R., Gimeno, L., Sorí, R., and Yiou, P.: The European 2016/17 Drought, Journal of Climate, 32, 3169–3187, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0331.1, 2019. a
Guenang, G. M. and Kamga, F. M.: Computation of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and Its Use to Assess Drought Occurrences in Cameroon over Recent Decades, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 53, 2310–2324, https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-14-0032.1, 2014. a, b
Hamon, W. R.: Computation of Direct Runoff Amounts from Storm Rainfall, International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication, 63, 52–62, 1963. a
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU TS Monthly High-Resolution Gridded Multivariate Climate Dataset, Scientific Data, 7, 109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3, 2020. a, b, c
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 Global Reanalysis, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 monthly averaged data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/CDS.F17050D7, 2023. a, b, c
Iturbide, M., Gutiérrez, J. M., Alves, L. M., Bedia, J., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cimadevilla, E., Cofiño, A. S., Di Luca, A., Faria, S. H., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Hauser, M., Herrera, S., Hennessy, K., Hewitt, H. T., Jones, R. G., Krakovska, S., Manzanas, R., Martínez-Castro, D., Narisma, G. T., Nurhati, I. S., Pinto, I., Seneviratne, S. I., van den Hurk, B., and Vera, C. S.: An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: definition and aggregated datasets, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2959–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2959-2020, 2020. a, b, c
John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Vahlenkamp, H., Wilson, C., Zadeh, N. T., Dunne, J. P., Dussin, R., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J. P., Lin, P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Ploshay, J., Shevliakova, E., Silvers, L., Stock, C., Winton, M., and Zeng, Y.: NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1414, 2018. a
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Bellprat, O., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Hunter, A., Lorenz, R., Pérez-Zanón, N., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Senftleben, D., Weigel, K., and Zechlau, S.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for emergent constraints and future projections from Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020. a
Lauer, A., Bock, L., Hassler, B., Jöckel, P., Ruhe, L., and Schlund, M.: Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025. a
Li, L.: CAS FGOALS-g3 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2056, 2019. a
Lovato, T., Peano, D., and Butenschön, M.: CMCC CMCC-ESM2 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.13168, 2021. a
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B.: Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: MassonDelmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf (last access: 10 March 2025), 2021. a
McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., and Kleist, J.: The Relationship of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time Scales, in: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Applied Climatology, Vol. 17. No. 22, 179–183, https://climate.colostate.edu/pdfs/relationshipofdroughtfrequency.pdf (last access: 20 December 2025), 1993. a, b
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S., Smith, S. J., van den Berg, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., and Wang, R. H. J.: The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020. a
Montanari, A., Nguyen, H., Rubinetti, S., Ceola, S., Galelli, S., Rubino, A., and Zanchettin, D.: Why the 2022 Po River Drought Is the Worst in the Past Two Centuries, Science Advances, 9, eadg8304, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg8304, 2023. a
Monteith, J. L.: Evaporation and Environment, in: Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, Cambridge University Press (CUP) Cambridge, 19, 205–234, 1965. a
Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann, C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Schumacher, M., Shadkam, S., Telteu, C.-E., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1037–1079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021, 2021. a
NASA/GISS: NASA-GISS GISS-E2.1G Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP Ssp585, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7460, 2020. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Paçal, A., Hassler, B., Weigel, K., Kurnaz, M. L., Wehner, M. F., and Eyring, V.: Detecting Extreme Temperature Events Using Gaussian Mixture Models, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2023JD038906, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD038906, 2023. a
Penman, H. L.: Natural Evaporation from Open Water, Bare Soil and Grass, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 193, 120–145, 1948. a
Pereira, L. S., Allen, R. G., Smith, M., and Raes, D.: Crop Evapotranspiration Estimation with FAO56: Past and Future, Agricultural Water Management, 147, 4–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.031, 2015. a
Pereira, M., Costa, M., Justino, F., and Malhado, A.: Response of South American Terrestrial Ecosystems to Future Patterns of Sea Surface Temperature, Advances in Meteorology, 2017, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2149479, 2017. a
Preimesberger, W., Dorigo, W., Dostalova, A., and Kidd, R.: SM V202212: Product User Guide and Specification (PUGS), https://confluence.ecmwf.int/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=355349314, last access: 27 November 2025. a
Rakovec, O., Samaniego, L., Hari, V., Markonis, Y., Moravec, V., Thober, S., Hanel, M., and Kumar, R.: The 2018–2020 Multi-Year Drought Sets a New Benchmark in Europe, Earth's Future, 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002394, 2022. a
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020. a, b
Schumacher, D. L., Zachariah, M., Otto, F., Barnes, C., Philip, S., Kew, S., Vahlberg, M., Singh, R., Heinrich, D., Arrighi, J., van Aalst, M., Hauser, M., Hirschi, M., Bessenbacher, V., Gudmundsson, L., Beaudoing, H. K., Rodell, M., Li, S., Yang, W., Vecchi, G. A., Harrington, L. J., Lehner, F., Balsamo, G., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Detecting the human fingerprint in the summer 2022 western–central European soil drought, Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 131–154, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-131-2024, 2024. a
Schupfner, M., Wieners, K.-H., Wachsmann, F., Milinski, S., Steger, C., Bittner, M., Jungclaus, J., Früh, B., Pankatz, K., Giorgetta, M., Reick, C., Legutke, S., Esch, M., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: DKRZ MPI-ESM1.2-LR Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.15349, 2021. a
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., De Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019. a
Semmler, T., Danilov, S., Rackow, T., Sidorenko, D., Barbi, D., Hegewald, J., Pradhan, H. K., Sein, D., Wang, Q., and Jung, T.: AWI AWI-CM1.1MR Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.376, 2019. a
Seneviratne, S., Zhang, X., Adnan, M., Badi, W., Dereczynski, C., Di Luca, A., Ghosh, S., Iskandar, I., Kossin, J., Lewis, S., Otto, F., Pinto, I., Satoh, M., Vicente-Serrano, S., Wehner, M., and Zhou, B.: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., 1513–1766, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.013, 2021. a
Shaw, S. B. and Riha, S. J.: Assessing Temperature-Based PET Equations under a Changing Climate in Temperate, Deciduous Forests, Hydrological Processes, 25, 1466–1478, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7913, 2011. a
Shiogama, H., Abe, M., and Tatebe, H.: MIROC MIROC6 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.898, 2019. a
Singh, J., Ashfaq, M., Skinner, C. B., Anderson, W. B., Mishra, V., and Singh, D.: Enhanced Risk of Concurrent Regional Droughts with Increased ENSO Variability and Warming, Nature Climate Change, 12, 163–170, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01276-3, 2022. a
Soci, C., Hersbach, H., Simmons, A., Poli, P., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Villaume, S., Haimberger, L., Woollen, J., Buontempo, C., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 Global Reanalysis from 1940 to 2022, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 150, 4014–4048, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4803, 2024. a
Song, Z., Qiao, F., Bao, Y., Shu, Q., Song, Y., and Yang, X.: FIO-QLNM FIO-ESM2.0 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9051, 2019. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1317, 2019. a
Tabari, H. and Willems, P.: Trivariate Analysis of Changes in Drought Characteristics in the CMIP6 Multi-Model Ensemble at Global Warming Levels of 1.5, 2 and 3 °C, Journal of Climate, 1, 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0993.1, 2022. a
Technical Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration: The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, ISBN 978-0-7844-0805-6 978-0-7844-7563-8, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408056, 2005. a, b
Teluguntla, P., Thenkabail, P., Xiong, J., Gumma, M., Giri, C., Milesi, C., Ozdogan, M., Congalton, R., Tilton, J., Sankey, T., Massey, R., Phalke, A., and Yadav, K.: NASA Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments (MEaSUREs) Global Food Security Support Analysis Data (GFSAD) Crop Mask 2010 Global 1 Km V001, NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MEASURES/GFSAD/GFSAD1KCM.001, 2016. a, b, c
Thornthwaite, C. W.: An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate, Geographical Review, 38, 55, https://doi.org/10.2307/210739, 1948. a, b
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, Journal of Climate, 23, 1696–1718, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1, 2010. a, b
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Peña-Angulo, D., Beguería, S., Domínguez-Castro, F., Tomás-Burguera, M., Noguera, I., Gimeno-Sotelo, L., and El Kenawy, A.: Global Drought Trends and Future Projections, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 380, 20210285, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0285, 2022. a, b, c, d, e
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP Ssp585, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4224, 2019. a
Volodin, E., Mortikov, E., Gritsun, A., Lykossov, V., Galin, V., Diansky, N., Gusev, A., Kostrykin, S., Iakovlev, N., Shestakova, A., and Emelina, S.: INM INM-CM5-0 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.12322, 2019. a
Walter, I. A., Allen, R. G., Elliott, R., Jensen, M. E., Itenfisu, D., Mecham, B., Howell, T. A., Snyder, R., Brown, P., Echings, S., Spofford, T., Hattendorf, M., Cuenca, R. H., Wright, J. L., and Martin, D.: ASCE's Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation, in: Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000, 1–11, American Society of Civil Engineers, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States, ISBN 978-0-7844-0499-7, https://doi.org/10.1061/40499(2000)126, 2001. a
Weigel, K., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Adeniyi, K., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Berg, P., Caron, L.-P., Cionni, I., Corti, S., Drost, N., Hunter, A., Lledó, L., Mohr, C. W., Paçal, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Predoi, V., Sandstad, M., Sillmann, J., Sterl, A., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., and Eyring, V.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021. a, b
WMO: Standardized Precipitation Index User Guide, World Meteorological Organization, World Meteorological Organization (WMO), WMO-No. 1090, ISBN 978-92-63-11091-6, https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/39629 (last access: 5 March 2025), 2012. a
WMO, W. M.: WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals, World Meteorological Organization (WMO), WMO-No. 1203, ISBN 978-92-63-11203-3 https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/55797 (last access: 5 March 2025), 2017. a
Xin, X., Wu, T., Shi, X., Zhang, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Liu, Q., Yan, J., Ma, Q., and Wei, M.: BCC BCC-CSM2MR Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1732, 2019. a
Xu, G., Wu, Y., Liu, S., Cheng, S., Zhang, Y., Pan, Y., Wang, L., Yu. Dokuchits, E., and Nkwazema, O. C.: How 2022 Extreme Drought Influences the Spatiotemporal Variations of Terrestrial Water Storage in the Yangtze River Catchment: Insights from GRACE-based Drought Severity Index and in-Situ Measurements, Journal of Hydrology, 626, 130245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130245, 2023. a
Yu, X., Zhang, L., Zhou, T., and Zheng, J.: Assessing the Performance of CMIP6 Models in Simulating Droughts across Global Drylands, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 193–208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-023-2278-4, 2023. a, b
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 Model Output Prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.638, 2019. a
Zeng, J., Li, J., Lu, X., Wei, Z., Shangguan, W., Zhang, S., Dai, Y., and Zhang, S.: Assessment of Global Meteorological, Hydrological and Agricultural Drought under Future Warming Based on CMIP6, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 15, 100143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aosl.2021.100143, 2021. a, b
Zhao, T. and Dai, A.: CMIP6 Model-Projected Hydroclimatic and Drought Changes and Their Causes in the Twenty-First Century, Journal of Climate, 35, 897–921, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0442.1, 2022. a, b
Zotarelli, L., Dukes, M. D., Romero, C. C., and Migliaccio, K. W.: Step by Step Calculation of the Penman-Monteith Evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Method), 10, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE459 (last access: 19 December 2025), 2010. a
Short summary
This study explores changes in drought characteristic based on projections by 18 different Earth system models. Their performance is evaluated by comparing historical simulations to observation based reanalysis. The analysis of a standardized drought index under different future scenarios revealed that the harvest area that is projected to experience extreme drought conditions towards the end of this century ranges from 10 % to 40 % depending on the emission scenario.
This study explores changes in drought characteristic based on projections by 18 different Earth...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint