Cited by 11,981Climate variability and modelsGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization

Open access
Eyring, Veronika, Bony, Sandrine, Meehl, Gerald A., Senior, Catherine A., Stevens, Bjorn, Stouffer, Ronald J., Taylor, Karl E.·2016·Geoscientific Model Development

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract. By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science. However, the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. After a long and wide community consultation, a new and more federated structure has been put in place. It consists of three major elements: (1) a handful of common experiments, the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments) and the CMIP Historical Simulation (1850–near-present) that will maintain continuity and help document basic characteristics of models across different phases of CMIP, (2) common standards, coordination, infrastructure and documentation that will facilitate the distribution of model outputs and the characterization of the model ensemble, and (3) an ensemble of CMIP-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) that will be specific to a particular phase of CMIP (now CMIP6) and that will build on the DECK and the CMIP Historical Simulation to address a large range of specific questions and fill the scientific gaps of the previous CMIP phases. The DECK and CMIP Historical Simulation, together with the use of CMIP data standards, will be the entry cards for models participating in CMIP. The participation in the CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs will be at the discretion of the modelling groups, and will depend on scientific interests and priorities. With the Grand Science Challenges of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) as its scientific backdrop, CMIP6 will address three broad questions: (i) how does the Earth system respond to forcing?, (ii) what are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases?, and (iii) how can we assess future climate changes given climate variability, predictability and uncertainties in scenarios? This CMIP6 overview paper presents the background and rationale for the new structure of CMIP, provides a detailed description of the DECK and the CMIP6 Historical Simulation, and includes a brief introduction to the 21 CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unlike in CMIP3 and CMIP5, where climate model projections were part of the core experiments, in CMIP6 they are part of a dedicated CMIP6-Endorsed MIP.

    “Unlike in CMIP3 and CMIP5, where climate model projections were part of the core experiments, in CMIP6 they are part of a dedicated CMIP6-Endorsed MIP (Eyring et al., 2016).”

    From The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 (2016) · cites this paper as Eyring et al., 2016

    The Impacts section says future scenario experiments were part of the CMIP5 core experiments and will instead be run through ScenarioMIP in CMIP6. The passage does not establish the claim that projections were also core experiments in CMIP3. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The IPCC AR6 statement on ENSO SST variability is contrary to studies 5-7 based on CMIP6 climate models.

    “The IPCC AR6 statement on ENSO SST variability is contrary to studies 5-7 based on climate models participating in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 8 (CMIP6).”
  • The analysis provides a test of the ability of the corresponding ALL simulations to reproduce the regional trends in annual mean temperature and precipitation against observational data.

    “The analysis provides a test of the ability of the corresponding ALL simulations to reproduce the regional trends in annual mean temperature and precipitation against observational data 56 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cubasch, U., Wuebbles, D., Chen, D., Facchini, M. C., Frame, D., Mahowald, N., and Winther, J.-G.: Introduction, in: Cli- mate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E.
Affiliations
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Eyring, Veronika
Venue
Geoscientific Model Development
Published
2016-05-26
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
1937-1958
ISSN
  • 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
  • 1991-9603
OpenAlex
W2193503481
Cited by
11,981
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1479 · 2025: 2008 · 2024: 2052 · 2023: 1974 · 2022: 1839 · 2021: 1479 · 2020: 680 · 2019: 194 · 2018: 149 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 40 · 2014: 1
FWCI
114.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geoscientific model development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • elib (German Aerospace Center) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DEFC0297ER62402, FC02-97ER62402)
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
CMIP6, CMIP, natural climate variability, climate predictability, climate change assessment

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