The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2)
Open accessAbstract
This article introduces the second generation CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2) that extends a number of marine and terrestrial biogeochemical processes with respect to its CMIP5 predecessor. In particular, land biogeochemistry was extended to a wider set of carbon pools and plant functional types, along with a prognostic representation of the nitrogen cycle. The marine ecosystem representation was reshaped toward an intermediate complexity of lower trophic level interactions, including an interactive benthic compartment and a new formulation of heterotrophic bacterial population. Details are provided on the model setup and implementation for the different experiments performed as contribution to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. CMCC‐ESM2 shows an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.57°C and a transient climate response of 1.97°C which are close to the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi‐model averages. The evaluation of the coupled climate‐carbon response in the historical period against available observational datasets show a consistent representation of both physical and biogeochemical quantities. However, the land carbon sink is found to be weaker than the current global carbon estimates and the simulated marine primary production is slightly below the satellite‐based average over recent decades. Future projections coherently show a prominent global warming over the northern hemisphere with intensified precipitations at high latitudes. The expected ranges of variability for oceanic pH and oxygen, as well as land carbon and nitrogen soil storage, compare favorably with those assessed from other CMIP6 models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 · Cited by 11,981
A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S., & Berry, J. A. (1980) · Planta · doi:10.1007/bf00386231 · Cited by 8,796
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
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., et al. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 · Cited by 5,241 · cited 3×
“In all future scenarios both carbon and nitrogen aggregated pools are characterized by an increase up to 2100, with extremes values reached by the ssp126 and ssp370 scenarios, which are respectively distinguished by maximum afforestation and deforestation interventions (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodClimate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., et al. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3800.1 · Cited by 2,902
Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world
Batjes, N. H. (2014) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/ejss.12114_2 · Cited by 2,550
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., et al. (2020) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020 · Cited by 2,544
Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)
Collins, W. D., Rasch, P., Boville, A. E., McCaa, J. R., Williamson, L., Kiehl, J., Briegleb, B. P., Bitz, C. M., Lin, S., Zhang, M., et al. (2004) · doi:10.5065/d63n21ch · Cited by 2,209
VERTEX: carbon cycling in the northeast Pacific
Martin, J. H., Knauer, G. A., Karl, D. M., & Broenkow, W. W. (1987) · Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers · doi:10.1016/0198-0149(87)90086-0 · Cited by 2,100
The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., et al. (2020) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020 · Cited by 1,815 · cited 2×
“At the end of the historical simulation in year 2014, the scenario simulations are initiated prescribing the pertaining forcing derived from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (Meinshausen et al., 2020).”
Method
Cited by
Mastropierro, M., Peano, D., & Zanchettin, D. (2024) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2024-823-supplement
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lovato, T., Peano, D., Butenschön, M., Materia, S., Iovino, D., Scoccimarro, E., Fogli, P. G., Cherchi, A., Bellucci, A., Gualdi, S., Masina, S., & Navarra, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1942-2466 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4213007329
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 33.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2021ms002814
- The paper
- Lovato, T., Peano, D., Butenschön, M., Materia, S., Iovino, D., Scoccimarro, E., Fogli, P. G., Cherchi, A., Bellucci, A., Gualdi, S., Masina, S., & Navarra, A. (2022). CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2). Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002814
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.