The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon System Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics*
Open accessAbstract
The authors describe carbon system formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled carbon–climate Earth System Models (ESM), ESM2M and ESM2G. These models demonstrate good climate fidelity as described in part I of this study while incorporating explicit and consistent carbon dynamics. The two models differ almost exclusively in the physical ocean component; ESM2M uses the Modular Ocean Model version 4.1 with vertical pressure layers, whereas ESM2G uses generalized ocean layer dynamics with a bulk mixed layer and interior isopycnal layers. On land, both ESMs include a revised land model to simulate competitive vegetation distributions and functioning, including carbon cycling among vegetation, soil, and atmosphere. In the ocean, both models include new biogeochemical algorithms including phytoplankton functional group dynamics with flexible stoichiometry. Preindustrial simulations are spun up to give stable, realistic carbon cycle means and variability. Significant differences in simulation characteristics of these two models are described. Because of differences in oceanic ventilation rates, ESM2M has a stronger biological carbon pump but weaker northward implied atmospheric CO 2 transport than ESM2G. The major advantages of ESM2G over ESM2M are improved representation of surface chlorophyll in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and thermocline nutrients and oxygen in the North Pacific. Improved tree mortality parameters in ESM2G produced more realistic carbon accumulation in vegetation pools. The major advantages of ESM2M over ESM2G are reduced nutrient and oxygen biases in the southern and tropical oceans.
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
Self-citationA 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
Climate–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
Self-citationUpper ocean ecosystem dynamics and iron cycling in a global three-dimensional model
Moore, J. K., Doney, S. C., & Lindsay, K. (2004) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2004gb002220 · Cited by 889
Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric C02 on the ocean–atmosphere system
Manabe, S., & Stouffer, R. J. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/364215a0 · Cited by 490
Self-citation
Cited by
Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models
Bopp, L., Resplandy, L., Orr, J. C., Doney, S. C., Dunne, J. P., Gehlen, M., Halloran, P., Heinze, C., Ilyina, T., Séférian, R., et al. (2013) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-10-6225-2013 · Cited by 1,649
Self-citationLarge influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake
Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S., Lawrence, D. M., & Gentine, P. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x · Cited by 773
Surface ocean pH and buffer capacity: past, present and future
Jiang, L.-Q., Carter, B. R., Feely, R. A., Lauvset, S. K., & Olsen, A. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-55039-4 · Cited by 435
How well do global ocean biogeochemistry models simulate dissolved iron distributions?
Tagliabue, A., Aumont, O., DeAth, R., Dunne, J. P., Dutkiewicz, S., Galbraith, E., Misumi, K., Moore, J. K., Ridgwell, A., Sherman, E., et al. (2016) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1002/2015gb005289 · Cited by 371
Self-citationDrivers and uncertainties of future global marine primary production in marine ecosystem models
Laufkötter, C., Vogt, M., Gruber, N., Aita-Noguchi, M., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Doney, S. C., Dunne, J., Hashioka, T., et al. (2015) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-12-6955-2015 · Cited by 369
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Sentman, L. T., Adcroft, A. J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K. A., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M. J., Levy, H., Wittenberg, A. T., Phillips, P. J., & Zadeh, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2013-04-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2247-2267
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W4241840196
- Cited by
- 662
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon System Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00150.1
- The paper
- Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Sentman, L. T., Adcroft, A. J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K. A., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M. J., Levy, H., Wittenberg, A. T., Phillips, P. J., & Zadeh, N. (2013). GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon System Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics*. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00150.1
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.