Oceans

Evaluation of ocean carbon cycle models with data-based metrics

  1. K. Matsumoto1,
  2. J. L. Sarmiento2,
  3. R. M. Key2,
  4. O. Aumont3,
  5. J. L. Bullister4,
  6. K. Caldeira5,
  7. J.-M. Campin6,
  8. S. C. Doney7,
  9. H. Drange8,
  10. J.-C. Dutay3,
  11. M. Follows9,
  12. Y. Gao8,
  13. A. Gnanadesikan10,
  14. N. Gruber11,
  15. A. Ishida12,
  16. F. Joos13,
  17. K. Lindsay14,
  18. E. Maier-Reimer15,
  19. J. C. Marshall9,
  20. R. J. Matear16,
  21. P. Monfray3,
  22. A. Mouchet6,
  23. R. Najjar17,
  24. G.-K. Plattner11,
  25. R. Schlitzer18,
  26. R. Slater2,
  27. P. S. Swathi19,
  28. I. J. Totterdell20,
  29. M.-F. Weirig18,
  30. Y. Yamanaka12,
  31. A. Yool20,
  32. J. C. Orr3

Article first published online: 2 APR 2004

DOI: 10.1029/2003GL018970

Issue

Geophysical Research Letters

Geophysical Research Letters

Additional Information

How to Cite

Matsumoto, K., et al. (2004), Evaluation of ocean carbon cycle models with data-based metrics, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L07303, doi:10.1029/2003GL018970.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Geological Survey of Japan, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan

  2. 2

    Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

  3. 3

    Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Unite Mixte de Recherche CEA-CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

  4. 4

    Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, USA

  5. 5

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA

  6. 6

    University of Liege, Liege, Belgium

  7. 7

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA

  8. 8

    Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen, Norway

  9. 9

    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

  10. 10

    NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

  11. 11

    Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA

  12. 12

    Frontier Research System for Global Change, Yokohama, Japan

  13. 13

    Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

  14. 14

    National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

  15. 15

    Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany

  16. 16

    CSIRO Division of Marine Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

  17. 17

    Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

  18. 18

    Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

  19. 19

    CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation, Bangalore, India

  20. 20

    Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 2 APR 2004
  2. Article first published online: 2 APR 2004
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 5 MAR 2004
  4. Manuscript Received: 25 DEC 2003

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (399K)

[1] New radiocarbon and chlorofluorocarbon-11 data from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment are used to assess a suite of 19 ocean carbon cycle models. We use the distributions and inventories of these tracers as quantitative metrics of model skill and find that only about a quarter of the suite is consistent with the new data-based metrics. This should serve as a warning bell to the larger community that not all is well with current generation of ocean carbon cycle models. At the same time, this highlights the danger in simply using the available models to represent the state-of-the-art modeling without considering the credibility of each model.

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (399K)