Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the energy and carbon footprint of Climate Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs), highlighting the increasing computational demands of Earth System Models (ESMs) due to finer resolutions and complex biogeochemical processes. By transitioning from voluntary carbon accounting in CMIP6 to a standardized approach in CMIP7, the authors empirically assess how varying accounting boundaries influence reported energy consumption, carbon emissions, and financial costs. The findings underscore the urgent need for standardized methodologies to accurately quantify the environmental impact of climate modeling efforts.
The shift from ad-hoc to standardized carbon accounting in climate modeling reveals significant discrepancies in energy and emissions reporting that could reshape climate research practices.
Earth System Models (ESMs) rely heavily on High-Performance Computing (HPC) resources to simulate global climate. As these models evolve, their computational demands continue to grow, driven by three factors: (1) finer spatial grid resolutions, (2) the integration of complex biogeochemical processes (e.g., atmospheric chemistry, interactive vegetation, land use, and ice sheets), and (3) larger climate ensembles to manage uncertainty. Historically, growth in peak computing performance (FLOP/s) has outpaced improvements in energy efficiency (FLOP/Watt), increasing total HPC power consumption. Despite the central role of Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) in climate research, quantifying their computational and environmental costs has received limited systematic attention. This paper examines the evolution of climate model carbon accounting from voluntary post-hoc estimation in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) to standardized accounting under the newly established CMIP7 Task Team on Energy Consumption. Using high-resolution Destination Earth simulations on MareNostrum 5, we empirically evaluate how different accounting boundaries (operational, active-only, and embodied carbon) impact reported energy, carbon emissions, and financial costs. Finally, we outline key methodological considerations for standardizing energy and carbon accounting for Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs).
