4.7 Article

ESM-SnowMIP: assessing snow models and quantifying snow-related climate feedbacks

Journal

GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages 5027-5049

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-11-5027-2018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. World Climate Research Programme's Climate and Cryosphere (CliC) core project
  2. NERC [NE/P011926/1]
  3. ESA
  4. Russian Science Foundation [16-17-10039]
  5. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [18-05-60216]
  6. APPLICATE project
  7. European Union [727862]
  8. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021E-160667]
  9. European Union within the Horizon 2020 project CRESCENDO [641816]
  10. JSPS [16H06291]
  11. U.S. National Science Foundation [1543268]
  12. NERC [NE/P011926/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. Russian Science Foundation [19-17-13002] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation
  14. Directorate For Geosciences [1543268] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  15. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1543268] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  16. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021E-160667] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes ESM-SnowMIP, an international coordinated modelling effort to evaluate current snow schemes, including snow schemes that are included in Earth system models, in a wide variety of settings against local and global observations. The project aims to identify crucial processes and characteristics that need to be improved in snow models in the context of local-and global-scale modelling. A further objective of ESM-SnowMIP is to better quantify snow-related feedbacks in the Earth system. Although it is not part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), ESM-SnowMIP is tightly linked to the CMIP6-endorsed Land Surface, Snow and Soil Moisture Model Intercomparison (LS3MIP).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available