FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Assessing the abilities of CMIP5 models to represent the seasonal cycle of surface ocean pCO(2)
BT 
AF PILCHER, Darren J.
   BRODY, Sarah R.
   JOHNSON, Leah
   BRONSELAER, Benjamin
AS 1:1;2:2;3:3;4:4;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;
C1 Univ Wisconsin, Dept Atmospher & Ocean Sci, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
   Duke Univ, Div Earth & Ocean Sci, Durham, NC USA.
   Univ Washington, Sch Oceanog, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
   Univ Oxford, Dept Phys, Oxford, England.
C2 UNIV WISCONSIN, USA
   UNIV DUKE, USA
   UNIV WASHINGTON, USA
   UNIV OXFORD, UK
TC 10
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00292/40368/38952.pdf
LA English
DT Article
CR OISO 8
   OISO1
   OISO2
   OISO3-NIVMER98
   OISO4 (VT 46)
   OISO5 (VT 49)
   VT 105 / OISO 17
   VT 108 / OISO-18
   VT 114 / OISO-19
   VT 117 / OISO-20
   VT 120 / OISO-21
   VT 127 / OISO-22
   VT 136 / OISO-23
   VT 142 / OISO-24
   VT 51 / OISO 6
   VT 57 / OISO 9
   VT 60 / CARAUS - OISO 10
   VT 62 / CARAUS - OISO 11
   VT 79 / OISO 12
   VT 80 / OISO 13
   VT 81 / OISO 14
   VT 85 / OISO 15
   VT 94 / OISO 16
BO Marion Dufresne
AB The ability of Earth System Models to accurately simulate the seasonal cycle of the partial pressure of CO2 in surface water (pCO(2)(SW)) has important implications for projecting future ocean carbon uptake. Here we develop objective model skill score metrics and assess the abilities of 18 CMIP5 models to simulate the seasonal mean, amplitude, and timing of pCO(2)(SW) in biogeographically defined ocean biomes. The models perform well at simulating the monthly timing of the seasonal minimum and maximum of pCO(2)(SW), but perform somewhat worse at simulating the seasonal mean values, particularly in polar and equatorial regions. The results also illustrate that a single "best'' model can be difficult to determine, despite an analysis restricted to the seasonality of a single variable. Nonetheless, groups of models tend to perform better than others, with significant regional differences. This suggests that particular models may be better suited for particular regions, though we find no evidence for model tuning. Timing and amplitude skill scores display a weak positive correlation with observational data density, while the seasonal mean scores display a weak negative correlation. Thus, additional mapped pCO(2)(SW) data may not directly increase model skill scores; however, improved knowledge of the dominant mechanisms may improve model skill. Lastly, we find skill score variability due to internal model variability to be much lower than variability within the CMIP5 intermodel spread, suggesting that mechanistic model differences are primarily responsible for differences in model skill scores.
PY 2015
PD JUN
SO Journal Of Geophysical Research-oceans
SN 0148-0027
PU Amer Geophysical Union
VL 120
IS 7
UT 000359776000002
BP 4625
EP 4637
DI 10.1002/2015JC010759
ID 40368
ER

EF