Early ACCESS-ESM1.6 ILAMB Evaluation Pipeline Using ACCESS-MOPPy

CMIP7 CMIP7 evaluation
, , ,
2

Hi @rbeucher and @RhaegarZeng ,

I’ve finally had a chance to look through the example results for ILAMB you shared.

A few questions I have:

  1. Is it expected that this example only shows ACCESS-ESM1.6 data from ~1950 onwards? While the ACCESS-ESM1.5 data is from 1850 onwards. E.g. see the time-series in EcosystemandCarbonCycle/GlobalNetEcosystemCarbonBalance/Hoffman/
  2. How is the surface albedo being derived from the ACCESS-ESM1.6 output?
  3. I wonder if there is a land mask issue when processing the ACCESS-ESM1.6 data. In a number of cases there a real values over the ocean which may be contaminating some of the ILAMB benchmarking metrics. For example:
    1. The Leaf Area Index for ACCESS-ESM1.6 seems to have real values over the ocean, whereas the benchmark data and ACCESS-ESM1.5 do not. See EcosystemandCarbonCycle/LeafAreaIndex/MODIS/. This issue is probably causing the apparent low model LAI in the relationship plot against Precipitation (see figure “ACCESS-ESM1_6_historical_Moppy_cmorised_global_rel_func_Precipitation.png”).
    2. Same issue for the NitrogenFixation/Davies-Barnard/.
    3. Same issue for Biomass/ESACCI/.
  4. Why aren’t ACCESS-ESM1.5 results reported for NitrogenFixation?
  5. I can see there is FLUXCOM benchmark data being used EcosystemRespiration. There should also be FLUXCOM data available for for GrossPrimaryProductivity. Possibly also NetEcosystemExchange. Can you include those please? And I believe there may be multiple variants
  6. Can you also please include the WECANN data for GrossPrimaryProductivity?
  7. Can you also please include the XuSaatchi2021 data for Biomass?

Finally, on the next test run of the workflow it would be more insightful for us if a more recent historical run was used. The run shared here is flagged for use as the first production run of the emissions-driven historical: /g/data/p66/rml599/historical/esm-historical-01/

Many thanks!