ALBERT

Description: The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) has contributed to the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using two fully coupled model versions (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) and two ocean–sea-ice model versions (1° and 0.25° resolution versions of ACCESS-OM2). The fully coupled models differ primarily in the configuration and version of their atmosphere components (including the aerosol scheme), with smaller differences in their sea-ice and land model versions. Additionally, ACCESS-ESM1.5 includes biogeochemistry in the land and ocean components and can be run with an interactive carbon cycle. CMIP6 comprises core experiments and associated thematic Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). This paper provides an overview of the CMIP6 submission, including the methods used for the preparation of input forcing datasets and the post-processing of model output, along with a comprehensive list of experiments performed, detailing their initialisation, duration, ensemble number and computational cost. A small selection of model output is presented, focusing on idealised experiments and their variants at global scale. Differences in the climate simulation of the two coupled models are highlighted. ACCESS-CM2 produces a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.7°C) than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (3.9°C), likely a result of updated atmospheric parameterisation in recent versions of the atmospheric component of ACCESS-CM2. The idealised experiments run with ACCESS-ESM1.5 show that land and ocean carbon fluxes respond to both changing atmospheric CO2 and to changing temperature. ACCESS data submitted to CMIP6 are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288). The information provided in this paper should facilitate easier use of these significant datasets by the broader climate community.

Description: Historical studies are heavily impacted by whose stories are told, who writes them, and how much local perspectives are included. This is true in volcanology as well, where analysis of historical sources and data related to eruptions may be impacted by the perspective and lived experience of the authors. As such, it is important to understand where the authors of volcanological studies are from and what perspectives they have. We used bibliometric methods to assess the way in which local researchers are included in volcanological publications by comparing the affiliation of authors with the country in which researched volcanoes are located. Globally, 40% of articles about a specific volcano do not include an author whose affiliation is based in the country where the volcano is located (a locally domiciled author), while 56% are led by authors not based in the country of the volcano. Over the past three decades, first authorship rates among local researchers have not increased. However, local researchers have become more frequently included as co-authors in research led by researchers domiciled elsewhere. The results of these analyses suggest that there is room for improvement in inclusivity in volcanological research and cause for reflection on how we collaborate with international partners. Improved collaboration and inclusion in publishing could result in better consideration of local knowledge and perspectives when analyzing historical information related to volcanic eruptions.