The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2)

Abstract
An overview of the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) is provided, including a discussion of the challenges encountered during its development and how they were addressed. In addition, an evaluation of a pair of CESM2 long preindustrial control and historical ensemble simulations is presented. These simulations were performed using the nominal 1° horizontal resolution configuration of the coupled model with both the “low‐top” (40 km, with limited chemistry) and “high‐top” (130 km, with comprehensive chemistry) versions of the atmospheric component. CESM2 contains many substantial science and infrastructure improvements and new capabilities since its previous major release, CESM1, resulting in improved historical simulations in comparison to CESM1 and available observations. These include major reductions in low‐latitude precipitation and shortwave cloud forcing biases; better representation of the Madden‐Julian Oscillation; better El Niño‐Southern Oscillation‐related teleconnections; and a global land carbon accumulation trend that agrees well with observationally based estimates. Most tropospheric and surface features of the low‐ and high‐top simulations are very similar to each other, so these improvements are present in both configurations. CESM2 has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.1–5.3 °C, larger than in CESM1, primarily due to a combination of relatively small changes to cloud microphysics and boundary layer parameters. In contrast, CESM2's transient climate response of 1.9–2.0 °C is comparable to that of CESM1. The model outputs from these and many other simulations are available to the research community, and they represent CESM2's contributions to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

150

[1]

10.5194/gmd-9-587-2016

[2]

10.1016/s0967-0645(01)00101-1

[3]

10.1038/ncomms10524

[4]

10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0487:fffti>2.3.co;2

[5]

Assur A. (1958)

[6]

10.1256/qj.03.73

[7]

Berrisford P. Dee D. P. K. F. Fielding K. Fuentes M. Kallberg P. Kobayashi S. &Uppala S.(2009).The ERA‐interim archive. ERA report series (1) 1‐16 Reading U. K.

[8]

10.5194/bg-13-2441-2016

[9]

10.5194/gmd-8-4045-2015

[10]

10.1175/jcli-d-13-00075.1

[11]

10.1029/2010jg001593

[12]

10.1029/2019gb006175

[13]

10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<1115:tncsmv>2.0.co;2

[14]

10.1175/jcli-d-15-0307.1

[15]

10.1175/bams-d-11-00170.1

[16]

Cavalieri D. J. Parkinson C. L. Gloersen P. &Zwally H. J.(1996).updated yearly. Sea ice concentrations from Nimbus‐7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I‐SSMIS passive microwave data version 1. Boulder Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi:https://doi.org/10.5067/8GQ8LZQVL0VL. 10.5067/8gq8lzqvl0vl

[17]

The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation

Nathan Collier, Forrest M. Hoffman, David M. Lawrence et al.

Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 10.1029/2018ms001354

[18]

10.1175/jcli3761.1

[19]

10.1175/jcli-d-11-00091.1

[20]

10.1175/2008jcli2596.1

[21]

10.1029/2010jc006243

[22]

The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system

D. P. Dee, S. M. Uppala, A. J. Simmons et al.

Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Soci... 10.1002/qj.828

[23]

10.1002/2017gl074273

[24]

10.1175/jcli-d-11-00301.1

[25]

10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020

[26]

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

Veronika Eyring, Sandrine Bony, Gerald A. Meehl et al.

Geoscientific Model Development 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

[27]

10.1029/2019ms001609

[28]

10.3389/fmars.2019.00260

[29]

10.1029/2011jc007168

[30]

10.1073/pnas.1423917112

[31]

10.1175/2011jcli4083.1

[32]

10.1029/2019gl083978

[33]

10.1175/jcli-d-11-00197.1

[34]

10.1029/2019jd030943

[35]

10.1175/jcli-d-14-00102.1

[36]

10.1002/2015ms000538

[37]

10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<3540:apbmfb>2.0.co;2

[38]

10.3189/002214311795306763

[39]

10.1029/2003gl018747

[40]

10.1175/bams-d-11-00184.1

[41]

Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS)

Rachel M. Hoesly, Steven J. Smith, Leyang Feng et al.

Geoscientific Model Development 10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018

[42]

10.1175/2010jas3425.1

[43]

Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, Validations, and Intercomparisons

Boyin Huang, Peter W. Thorne, Viva F. Banzon et al.

Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-16-0836.1

[44]

10.5194/gmd-9-4209-2016

[45]

10.1029/2009gl040000

[46]

10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.008

[47]

Hunke E. C Lipscomb W. H. Turner A. K. Jeffery N. &Elliott S.(2015).CICE: The Los Alamos Sea Ice Model. Documentation and Software User's Manual. Version 5.1. T‐3 Fluid Dynamics Group Los Alamos National Laboratory Tech. Rep. LA‐CC‐06‐012.

[48]

The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for Collaborative Research

James W. Hurrell, M. M. Holland, P. R. Gent et al.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 10.1175/bams-d-12-00121.1

[49]

10.1029/2008jd009944

[50]

10.1029/2011jd017139

Showing 50 of 150 references

Cited By

1,867

Global mercury emissions from wildfires are three times lower than existing estimates

Peng Zhang, Tengfei Yuan · 2026

One Earth

Climate change effects on seawater reverse osmosis desalination: an Australian case study

Gustavo Leite Dias Pereira, Jorge Paz-Ferreiro · 2026

Environmental Science: Water Resear...

Assessment of the Applicability of CMIP6 Global Climate Models for Predicting Climate Change and Natural Hazard Frequency in the Magadan Oblast

A. N. Shikhov, A. A. Zemlianskova · 2026

Russian Meteorology and Hydrology

African Easterly Jets and Surface Thermal Heating Responses to Climate Change Over Central Africa in CMIP6 Models

Giresse Kuete, Adeyemi Adebiyi · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

Distinguishing Between the Short‐Term Climate Responses to Different Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Latitudes With Explainable Artificial Intelligence

Cameron Dong, Charlotte Connolly · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

An Arctic Sea Ice Energy Budget for the Last Interglacial

M. Pollock, R. Diamond · 2026

Geophysical Research Letters

Amplified North Atlantic Little Ice Age Cooling Inferred From Inversion of Benthic Foraminiferal Records

Brynnydd Hamilton, Geoffrey Gebbie · 2026

Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatolo...

South American Mesoscale Convective Systems: Present and Future Climates

Amanda Rehbein, Tercio Ambrizzi · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

Evaluating the Coupled GEOS‐AOGCM for Climate Research: Response to an Abrupt Quadrupling of CO 2 Forcing

Feng Li, Sarah A. Strode · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

Robust Yet Diverse Tropical Responses to Antarctic Meltwater Across Models

Xiyue Zhang, Ariaan Purich · 2026

Geophysical Research Letters

A Southern Ocean Multidecadal Oscillator Forced by Deep Convection

Robert R. Ford, Brian E. J. Rose · 2026

Geophysical Research Letters

Decoupling vegetation and soil-moisture interaction in evapotranspiration interannual variability

Xiaowen Huang, Shijing Liang · 2025

iScience

U-Surf: a global 1 km spatially continuous urban surface property dataset for kilometer-scale urban-resolving Earth system modeling

Yifan Cheng, Lei Zhao · 2025

Earth System Science Data

Irrigation-induced land water depletion aggravated by climate change

Yi Yao, Wim Thiery · 2025

Nature Water

Contextualizing GCM Biases in Low‐Cloud Coverage: The Role of Large‐Scale Conditions

Hamish Lewis, Gilles Bellon · 2025

Geophysical Research Letters

Present-day mass loss rates are a precursor for West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse

Tim van den Akker, William H. Lipscomb · 2025

The Cryosphere

Assessing the climate impact of an improved volcanic sulfate aerosol representation in E3SM

Ziming Ke, Qi Tang · 2025

Geoscientific Model Development

Rising atmospheric moisture escalates the future impact of atmospheric rivers in the Antarctic climate system

Michelle L. Maclennan, Andrew C. Winters · 2025

Communications Earth & Environm...

Atmospheric Fronts Drive Future Changes in Extratropical Extreme Precipitation

K. Konstali, T. Spengler · 2025

Geophysical Research Letters

Version 1.1.1 - TROVA: TRansport Of water VApor

José C. Fernández‐Alvarez, Albenis Pérez-Alarcón · 2025

SoftwareX

Metrics

1,867

Citations

150

References

Details

Published: Feb 01, 2020
Vol/Issue: 12(2)
License: View

Authors

G

G. Danabasoglu

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J.‐F. Lamarque

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. Bacmeister

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

D

D. A. Bailey

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

A

A. K. DuVivier

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. Edwards

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

L

L. K. Emmons

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. Fasullo

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

R

R. Garcia

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

A

A. Gettelman

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA; Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

C

C. Hannay

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

M

M. M. Holland

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

W

W. G. Large

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

P

P. H. Lauritzen

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

D

D. M. Lawrence

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. T. M. Lenaerts

Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences University of Colorado Boulder Boulder CO USA

K

K. Lindsay

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

W

W. H. Lipscomb

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

M

M. J. Mills

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

R

R. Neale

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

K

K. W. Oleson

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

B

B. Otto‐Bliesner

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

A

A. S. Phillips

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

W

W. Sacks

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

S

S. Tilmes

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

L

L. van Kampenhout

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht Netherlands

M

M. Vertenstein

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

A

A. Bertini

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. Dennis

Computational and Information Systems Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

C

C. Deser

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

C

C. Fischer

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

B

B. Fox‐Kemper

Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences Brown University Providence RI USA

J

J. E. Kay

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences University of Colorado Boulder Boulder CO USA

D

D. Kinnison

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

P

P. J. Kushner

Department of Physics University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada

V

V. E. Larson

Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee Milwaukee WI USA

M

M. C. Long

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

S

S. Mickelson

Computational and Information Systems Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

J

J. K. Moore

Department of Earth System Science University of California Irvine Irvine CA USA

E

E. Nienhouse

Computational and Information Systems Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

L

L. Polvani

Applied Mathematics/Earth and Environmental Sciences Columbia University New York NY USA

P

P. J. Rasch

Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland WA USA

W

W. G. Strand

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

Funding

National Science Foundation Award: CA No: 1852977

Cite This Article

G. Danabasoglu, J.‐F. Lamarque, J. Bacmeister, et al. (2020). The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2). Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001916

The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2)

You May Also Like