Articles | Volume 10, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review
| 
13 Feb 2019
Review |
| 13 Feb 2019
| 13 Feb 2019
ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing
Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Australia
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Australia
Nadja Herger
Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Australia
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Australia
Ethan Gutmann
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Dorit Hammerling
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Reto Knutti
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich,
Switzerland
Martin Leduc
Ouranos, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal,
Québec, Canada
Ruth Lorenz
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich,
Switzerland
Robert Pincus
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
NOAA Earth System Research Lab, Physical Sciences Division, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Gavin A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
Related authors
Georgina Falster, Gab Abramowitz, Sanaa Hobeichi, Cath Hughes, Pauline Treble, Nerilie J. Abram, Michael I. Bird, Alexandre Cauquoin, Bronwyn Dixon, Russell Drysdale, Chenhui Jin, Niels Munksgaard, Bernadette Proemse, Jonathan J. Tyler, Martin Werner, and Carol Tadros
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2458, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2458, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We used a random forest approach to produce estimates of monthly precipitation stable isotope variability from 1962–2023, at high resolution across the entire Australian continent. Comprehensive skill and sensitivity testing shows that our random forest models skilfully predict precipitation isotope values in places and times that observations are not available. We make all outputs publicly available, facilitating use in fields from ecology and hydrology to archaeology and forensic science.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, Philippe Ciais, and Daniel S. Goll
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate estimates of global soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its spatial pattern are critical for future climate change mitigation. However, the most advanced mechanistic SOC models struggle to do this task. Here we apply multiple explainable machine learning methods to identify missing variables and misrepresented relationships between environmental factors and SOC in these models, offering new insights to guide model development for more reliable SOC predictions.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, and Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel
SOIL, 10, 619–636, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Effective management of soil organic carbon (SOC) requires accurate knowledge of its distribution and factors influencing its dynamics. We identify the importance of variables in spatial SOC variation and estimate SOC stocks in Australia using various models. We find there are significant disparities in SOC estimates when different models are used, highlighting the need for a critical re-evaluation of land management strategies that rely on the SOC distribution derived from a single approach.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Andrew J. Pitman, Anna M. Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Bastien François, and Benjamin Smith
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 549–576, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Studies analyzing the impact of the future climate on ecosystems employ climate projections simulated by global circulation models. These climate projections display biases that translate into significant uncertainty in projections of the future carbon cycle. Here, we test different methods to constrain the uncertainty in simulations of the carbon cycle over Australia. We find that all methods reduce the bias in the steady-state carbon variables but that temporal properties do not improve.
Jon Cranko Page, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Jamie Cleverly, Nina Hinko-Najera, Mark J. Hovenden, Yao Liu, Andy J. Pitman, and Kiona Ogle
Biogeosciences, 19, 1913–1932, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Although vegetation responds to climate at a wide range of timescales, models of the land carbon sink often ignore responses that do not occur instantly. In this study, we explore the timescales at which Australian ecosystems respond to climate. We identified that carbon and water fluxes can be modelled more accurately if we include environmental drivers from up to a year in the past. The importance of antecedent conditions is related to ecosystem aridity but is also influenced by other factors.
Anna M. Ukkola, Gab Abramowitz, and Martin G. De Kauwe
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 449–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Flux towers provide measurements of water, energy, and carbon fluxes. Flux tower data are invaluable in improving and evaluating land models but are not suited to modelling applications as published. Here we present flux tower data tailored for land modelling, encompassing 170 sites globally. Our dataset resolves several key limitations hindering the use of flux tower data in land modelling, including incomplete forcing variable, data format, and low data quality.
Sanaa Hobeichi, Gab Abramowitz, and Jason P. Evans
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3855–3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3855-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3855-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Evapotranspiration (ET) links the water, energy and carbon cycle on land. Reliable ET estimates are key to understand droughts and flooding. We develop a new ET dataset, DOLCE V3, by merging multiple global ET datasets, and we show that it matches ET observations better and hence is more reliable than its parent datasets. Next, we use DOLCE V3 to examine recent changes in ET and find that ET has increased over most of the land, decreased in some regions, and has not changed in some other regions
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone and greenhouse gases alone are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Georgina Falster, Gab Abramowitz, Sanaa Hobeichi, Cath Hughes, Pauline Treble, Nerilie J. Abram, Michael I. Bird, Alexandre Cauquoin, Bronwyn Dixon, Russell Drysdale, Chenhui Jin, Niels Munksgaard, Bernadette Proemse, Jonathan J. Tyler, Martin Werner, and Carol Tadros
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2458, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2458, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We used a random forest approach to produce estimates of monthly precipitation stable isotope variability from 1962–2023, at high resolution across the entire Australian continent. Comprehensive skill and sensitivity testing shows that our random forest models skilfully predict precipitation isotope values in places and times that observations are not available. We make all outputs publicly available, facilitating use in fields from ecology and hydrology to archaeology and forensic science.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, Philippe Ciais, and Daniel S. Goll
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2545, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate estimates of global soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its spatial pattern are critical for future climate change mitigation. However, the most advanced mechanistic SOC models struggle to do this task. Here we apply multiple explainable machine learning methods to identify missing variables and misrepresented relationships between environmental factors and SOC in these models, offering new insights to guide model development for more reliable SOC predictions.
Gavin A. Schmidt, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Jonathan L. Bamber, Dustin Carroll, David M. Chandler, Violaine Coulon, Benjamin J. Davison, Matthew H. England, Paul R. Holland, Nicolas C. Jourdain, Qian Li, Juliana M. Marson, Pierre Mathiot, Clive R. McMahon, Twila A. Moon, Ruth Mottram, Sophie Nowicki, Anne Olivé Abelló, Andrew G. Pauling, Thomas Rackow, and Damien Ringeisen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1940, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1940, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of increasing mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has not so far been included in historical climate model simulations. This paper describes the protocols and data available for modeling groups to add this anomalous freshwater to their ocean modules to better represent the impacts of these fluxes on ocean circulation, sea ice, salinity and sea level.
Sean P. Burns, Vincent Humphrey, Ethan D. Gutmann, Mark S. Raleigh, David R. Bowling, and Peter D. Blanken
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1755, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We compared two techniques that are affected by the amount of liquid water in a forest canopy. One technique relies on remote sensing (a pair of GPS systems) and the other uses tree motion generated by the wind. Though completely different, these two techniques show strikingly similar changes when rain falls on an evergreen forest. We combine these measurements with eddy-covariance fluxes of water vapor to provide some insight into the evaporation of canopy-intercepted precipitation.
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ensemble consistency test (ECT) and its ultrafast variant (UF-ECT) have become powerful tools in the development community for the identification of unwanted changes in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We develop a generalized setup framework to enable easy adoption of the ECT approach for other model developers and communities. This framework specifies test parameters to accurately characterize model variability and balance test sensitivity and computational cost.
Mari R. Tye, Ming Ge, Jadwiga H. Richter, Ethan D. Gutmann, Allyson Rugg, Cindy L. Bruyère, Sue Ellen Haupt, Flavio Lehner, Rachel McCrary, Andrew J. Newman, and Andy Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a perceived mismatch between the spatial scales on which global climate models can produce data and those needed for water management decisions. However, poor communication of specific metrics relevant to local decisions is also a problem. We assessed the credibility of a set of water management decision metrics in the Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2). CESM2 shows potentially greater use of its output in long-range water management decisions.
Luna Bloin-Wibe, Robin Noyelle, Vincent Humphrey, Urs Beyerle, Reto Knutti, and Erich Fischer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-525, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-525, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Weather extremes have become more frequent due to climate change. It is therefore crucial to understand them, but since they are rarer than average weather, they are challenging to study. Ensemble Boosting (EB) is a tool that generates extreme climate model events efficiently, but without directly estimating their probability. Here, we present a method to recover these probabilities for a global climate model. EB can thus now be used to find extremes with meaningful statistical information.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Lingfei Wang, Gab Abramowitz, Ying-Ping Wang, Andy Pitman, and Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel
SOIL, 10, 619–636, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-619-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Effective management of soil organic carbon (SOC) requires accurate knowledge of its distribution and factors influencing its dynamics. We identify the importance of variables in spatial SOC variation and estimate SOC stocks in Australia using various models. We find there are significant disparities in SOC estimates when different models are used, highlighting the need for a critical re-evaluation of land management strategies that rely on the SOC distribution derived from a single approach.
Ross Mower, Ethan D. Gutmann, Glen E. Liston, Jessica Lundquist, and Soren Rasmussen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4135–4154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Higher-resolution model simulations are better at capturing winter snowpack changes across space and time. However, increasing resolution also increases the computational requirements. This work provides an overview of changes made to a distributed snow-evolution modeling system (SnowModel) to allow it to leverage high-performance computing resources. Continental simulations that were previously estimated to take 120 d can now be performed in 5 h.
Stephanie Fiedler, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Christopher J. Smith, Paul Griffiths, Ryan J. Kramer, Toshihiko Takemura, Robert J. Allen, Ulas Im, Matthew Kasoar, Angshuman Modak, Steven Turnock, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M. Westervelt, Laura J. Wilcox, Alcide Zhao, William J. Collins, Michael Schulz, Gunnar Myhre, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2387–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate scientists want to better understand modern climate change. Thus, climate model experiments are performed and compared. The results of climate model experiments differ, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This article gives insights into the challenges and outlines opportunities for further improving the understanding of climate change. It is based on views of a group of experts in atmospheric composition–climate interactions.
Tiehan Zhou, Kevin J. DallaSanta, Clara Orbe, David H. Rind, Jeffrey A. Jonas, Larissa Nazarenko, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Gary Russell
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 509–532, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-509-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-509-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) tends to speed up and slow down the phase speed of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) during El Niño and La Niña, respectively. The ENSO modulation of the QBO does not show up in the climate models with parameterized but temporally constant gravity wave sources. We show that the GISS E2.2 models can capture the observed ENSO modulation of the QBO period with a horizontal resolution of 2° by 2.5° and its gravity wave sources parameterized interactively.
Dylan Reynolds, Ethan Gutmann, Bert Kruyt, Michael Haugeneder, Tobias Jonas, Franziska Gerber, Michael Lehning, and Rebecca Mott
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5049–5068, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5049-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5049-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The challenge of running geophysical models is often compounded by the question of where to obtain appropriate data to give as input to a model. Here we present the HICAR model, a simplified atmospheric model capable of running at spatial resolutions of hectometers for long time series or over large domains. This makes physically consistent atmospheric data available at the spatial and temporal scales needed for some terrestrial modeling applications, for example seasonal snow forecasting.
Anna L. Merrifield, Lukas Brunner, Ruth Lorenz, Vincent Humphrey, and Reto Knutti
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4715–4747, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4715-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4715-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Using all Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models is unfeasible for many applications. We provide a subselection protocol that balances user needs for model independence, performance, and spread capturing CMIP’s projection uncertainty simultaneously. We show how sets of three to five models selected for European applications map to user priorities. An audit of model independence and its influence on equilibrium climate sensitivity uncertainty in CMIP is also presented.
Robert Pincus, Paul A. Hubanks, Steven Platnick, Kerry Meyer, Robert E. Holz, Denis Botambekov, and Casey J. Wall
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2483–2497, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2483-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2483-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new global dataset of cloud properties observed by a specific satellite program created to facilitate comparison with a matching observational proxy used in climate models. Statistics are accumulated over daily and monthly timescales on an equal-angle grid. Statistics include cloud detection, cloud-top pressure, and cloud optical properties. Joint histograms of several variable pairs are also available.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Andrew J. Pitman, Anna M. Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Bastien François, and Benjamin Smith
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 549–576, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-549-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Studies analyzing the impact of the future climate on ecosystems employ climate projections simulated by global circulation models. These climate projections display biases that translate into significant uncertainty in projections of the future carbon cycle. Here, we test different methods to constrain the uncertainty in simulations of the carbon cycle over Australia. We find that all methods reduce the bias in the steady-state carbon variables but that temporal properties do not improve.
Iris Elisabeth de Vries, Sebastian Sippel, Angeline Greene Pendergrass, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 81–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-81-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Precipitation change is an important consequence of climate change, but it is hard to detect and quantify. Our intuitive method yields robust and interpretable detection of forced precipitation change in three observational datasets for global mean and extreme precipitation, but the different observational datasets show different magnitudes of forced change. Assessment and reduction of uncertainties surrounding forced precipitation change are important for future projections and adaptation.
Olivier Asselin, Martin Leduc, Dominique Paquin, Katja Winger, Alejandro Di Luca, Melissa Bukovsky, Biljana Music, and Michel Giguère
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-291, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-291, 2022
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Planting trees cools the climate by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, but may also cool or warm the climate by altering the albedo, roughness and evapotranspiration efficiency of the surface. To quantify these biogeophysical effects, we ran regional climate models over two idealized worlds, FOREST and GRASS, respectively representing maximum and minimum tree cover over North America and Europe. We find that these effects must be taken into account to successfully mitigate climate change.
Jon Cranko Page, Martin G. De Kauwe, Gab Abramowitz, Jamie Cleverly, Nina Hinko-Najera, Mark J. Hovenden, Yao Liu, Andy J. Pitman, and Kiona Ogle
Biogeosciences, 19, 1913–1932, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1913-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Although vegetation responds to climate at a wide range of timescales, models of the land carbon sink often ignore responses that do not occur instantly. In this study, we explore the timescales at which Australian ecosystems respond to climate. We identified that carbon and water fluxes can be modelled more accurately if we include environmental drivers from up to a year in the past. The importance of antecedent conditions is related to ecosystem aridity but is also influenced by other factors.
Anna M. Ukkola, Gab Abramowitz, and Martin G. De Kauwe
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 449–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Flux towers provide measurements of water, energy, and carbon fluxes. Flux tower data are invaluable in improving and evaluating land models but are not suited to modelling applications as published. Here we present flux tower data tailored for land modelling, encompassing 170 sites globally. Our dataset resolves several key limitations hindering the use of flux tower data in land modelling, including incomplete forcing variable, data format, and low data quality.
Geet George, Bjorn Stevens, Sandrine Bony, Robert Pincus, Chris Fairall, Hauke Schulz, Tobias Kölling, Quinn T. Kalen, Marcus Klingebiel, Heike Konow, Ashley Lundry, Marc Prange, and Jule Radtke
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 5253–5272, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Dropsondes measure atmospheric parameters such as temperature, pressure, humidity and horizontal winds. The EUREC4A field campaign deployed 1215 dropsondes during January–February 2020 in the north Atlantic trade-wind region in order to characterize the thermodynamic and the dynamic structure of the atmosphere, primarily at horizontal scales of ~ 200 km. We present JOANNE, the dataset that provides these dropsonde measurements and thereby a rich characterization of the trade-wind atmosphere.
Bjorn Stevens, Sandrine Bony, David Farrell, Felix Ament, Alan Blyth, Christopher Fairall, Johannes Karstensen, Patricia K. Quinn, Sabrina Speich, Claudia Acquistapace, Franziska Aemisegger, Anna Lea Albright, Hugo Bellenger, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Kathy-Ann Caesar, Rebecca Chewitt-Lucas, Gijs de Boer, Julien Delanoë, Leif Denby, Florian Ewald, Benjamin Fildier, Marvin Forde, Geet George, Silke Gross, Martin Hagen, Andrea Hausold, Karen J. Heywood, Lutz Hirsch, Marek Jacob, Friedhelm Jansen, Stefan Kinne, Daniel Klocke, Tobias Kölling, Heike Konow, Marie Lothon, Wiebke Mohr, Ann Kristin Naumann, Louise Nuijens, Léa Olivier, Robert Pincus, Mira Pöhlker, Gilles Reverdin, Gregory Roberts, Sabrina Schnitt, Hauke Schulz, A. Pier Siebesma, Claudia Christine Stephan, Peter Sullivan, Ludovic Touzé-Peiffer, Jessica Vial, Raphaela Vogel, Paquita Zuidema, Nicola Alexander, Lyndon Alves, Sophian Arixi, Hamish Asmath, Gholamhossein Bagheri, Katharina Baier, Adriana Bailey, Dariusz Baranowski, Alexandre Baron, Sébastien Barrau, Paul A. Barrett, Frédéric Batier, Andreas Behrendt, Arne Bendinger, Florent Beucher, Sebastien Bigorre, Edmund Blades, Peter Blossey, Olivier Bock, Steven Böing, Pierre Bosser, Denis Bourras, Pascale Bouruet-Aubertot, Keith Bower, Pierre Branellec, Hubert Branger, Michal Brennek, Alan Brewer, Pierre-Etienne Brilouet, Björn Brügmann, Stefan A. Buehler, Elmo Burke, Ralph Burton, Radiance Calmer, Jean-Christophe Canonici, Xavier Carton, Gregory Cato Jr., Jude Andre Charles, Patrick Chazette, Yanxu Chen, Michal T. Chilinski, Thomas Choularton, Patrick Chuang, Shamal Clarke, Hugh Coe, Céline Cornet, Pierre Coutris, Fleur Couvreux, Susanne Crewell, Timothy Cronin, Zhiqiang Cui, Yannis Cuypers, Alton Daley, Gillian M. Damerell, Thibaut Dauhut, Hartwig Deneke, Jean-Philippe Desbios, Steffen Dörner, Sebastian Donner, Vincent Douet, Kyla Drushka, Marina Dütsch, André Ehrlich, Kerry Emanuel, Alexandros Emmanouilidis, Jean-Claude Etienne, Sheryl Etienne-Leblanc, Ghislain Faure, Graham Feingold, Luca Ferrero, Andreas Fix, Cyrille Flamant, Piotr Jacek Flatau, Gregory R. Foltz, Linda Forster, Iulian Furtuna, Alan Gadian, Joseph Galewsky, Martin Gallagher, Peter Gallimore, Cassandra Gaston, Chelle Gentemann, Nicolas Geyskens, Andreas Giez, John Gollop, Isabelle Gouirand, Christophe Gourbeyre, Dörte de Graaf, Geiske E. de Groot, Robert Grosz, Johannes Güttler, Manuel Gutleben, Kashawn Hall, George Harris, Kevin C. Helfer, Dean Henze, Calvert Herbert, Bruna Holanda, Antonio Ibanez-Landeta, Janet Intrieri, Suneil Iyer, Fabrice Julien, Heike Kalesse, Jan Kazil, Alexander Kellman, Abiel T. Kidane, Ulrike Kirchner, Marcus Klingebiel, Mareike Körner, Leslie Ann Kremper, Jan Kretzschmar, Ovid Krüger, Wojciech Kumala, Armin Kurz, Pierre L'Hégaret, Matthieu Labaste, Tom Lachlan-Cope, Arlene Laing, Peter Landschützer, Theresa Lang, Diego Lange, Ingo Lange, Clément Laplace, Gauke Lavik, Rémi Laxenaire, Caroline Le Bihan, Mason Leandro, Nathalie Lefevre, Marius Lena, Donald Lenschow, Qiang Li, Gary Lloyd, Sebastian Los, Niccolò Losi, Oscar Lovell, Christopher Luneau, Przemyslaw Makuch, Szymon Malinowski, Gaston Manta, Eleni Marinou, Nicholas Marsden, Sebastien Masson, Nicolas Maury, Bernhard Mayer, Margarette Mayers-Als, Christophe Mazel, Wayne McGeary, James C. McWilliams, Mario Mech, Melina Mehlmann, Agostino Niyonkuru Meroni, Theresa Mieslinger, Andreas Minikin, Peter Minnett, Gregor Möller, Yanmichel Morfa Avalos, Caroline Muller, Ionela Musat, Anna Napoli, Almuth Neuberger, Christophe Noisel, David Noone, Freja Nordsiek, Jakub L. Nowak, Lothar Oswald, Douglas J. Parker, Carolyn Peck, Renaud Person, Miriam Philippi, Albert Plueddemann, Christopher Pöhlker, Veronika Pörtge, Ulrich Pöschl, Lawrence Pologne, Michał Posyniak, Marc Prange, Estefanía Quiñones Meléndez, Jule Radtke, Karim Ramage, Jens Reimann, Lionel Renault, Klaus Reus, Ashford Reyes, Joachim Ribbe, Maximilian Ringel, Markus Ritschel, Cesar B. Rocha, Nicolas Rochetin, Johannes Röttenbacher, Callum Rollo, Haley Royer, Pauline Sadoulet, Leo Saffin, Sanola Sandiford, Irina Sandu, Michael Schäfer, Vera Schemann, Imke Schirmacher, Oliver Schlenczek, Jerome Schmidt, Marcel Schröder, Alfons Schwarzenboeck, Andrea Sealy, Christoph J. Senff, Ilya Serikov, Samkeyat Shohan, Elizabeth Siddle, Alexander Smirnov, Florian Späth, Branden Spooner, M. Katharina Stolla, Wojciech Szkółka, Simon P. de Szoeke, Stéphane Tarot, Eleni Tetoni, Elizabeth Thompson, Jim Thomson, Lorenzo Tomassini, Julien Totems, Alma Anna Ubele, Leonie Villiger, Jan von Arx, Thomas Wagner, Andi Walther, Ben Webber, Manfred Wendisch, Shanice Whitehall, Anton Wiltshire, Allison A. Wing, Martin Wirth, Jonathan Wiskandt, Kevin Wolf, Ludwig Worbes, Ethan Wright, Volker Wulfmeyer, Shanea Young, Chidong Zhang, Dongxiao Zhang, Florian Ziemen, Tobias Zinner, and Martin Zöger
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4067–4119, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The EUREC4A field campaign, designed to test hypothesized mechanisms by which clouds respond to warming and benchmark next-generation Earth-system models, is presented. EUREC4A comprised roughly 5 weeks of measurements in the downstream winter trades of the North Atlantic – eastward and southeastward of Barbados. It was the first campaign that attempted to characterize the full range of processes and scales influencing trade wind clouds.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Esteban Alonso-González, Ethan Gutmann, Kristoffer Aalstad, Abbas Fayad, Marine Bouchet, and Simon Gascoin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4455–4471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4455-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4455-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Snow water resources represent a key hydrological resource for the Mediterranean regions, where most of the precipitation falls during the winter months. This is the case for Lebanon, where snowpack represents 31 % of the spring flow. We have used models to generate snow information corrected by means of remote sensing snow cover retrievals. Our results highlight the high temporal variability in the snowpack in Lebanon and its sensitivity to further warming caused by its hypsography.
Robert Pincus, Chris W. Fairall, Adriana Bailey, Haonan Chen, Patrick Y. Chuang, Gijs de Boer, Graham Feingold, Dean Henze, Quinn T. Kalen, Jan Kazil, Mason Leandro, Ashley Lundry, Ken Moran, Dana A. Naeher, David Noone, Akshar J. Patel, Sergio Pezoa, Ivan PopStefanija, Elizabeth J. Thompson, James Warnecke, and Paquita Zuidema
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3281–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3281-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3281-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes observations taken from a research aircraft during a field experiment in the western Atlantic Ocean during January and February 2020. The plane made 11 flights, most 8-9 h long, and measured the properties of the atmosphere and ocean with a combination of direct measurements, sensors falling from the plane to profile the atmosphere and ocean, and remote sensing measurements of clouds and the ocean surface.
Daniel J. Lunt, Deepak Chandan, Alan M. Haywood, George M. Lunt, Jonathan C. Rougier, Ulrich Salzmann, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Paul J. Valdes
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4307–4317, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4307-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4307-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Often in science we carry out experiments with computers in which several factors are explored, for example, in the field of climate science, how the factors of greenhouse gases, ice, and vegetation affect temperature. We can explore the relative importance of these factors by
swapping in and outdifferent values of these factors, and can also carry out experiments with many different combinations of these factors. This paper discusses how best to analyse the results from such experiments.
Sanaa Hobeichi, Gab Abramowitz, and Jason P. Evans
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3855–3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3855-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3855-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Evapotranspiration (ET) links the water, energy and carbon cycle on land. Reliable ET estimates are key to understand droughts and flooding. We develop a new ET dataset, DOLCE V3, by merging multiple global ET datasets, and we show that it matches ET observations better and hence is more reliable than its parent datasets. Next, we use DOLCE V3 to examine recent changes in ET and find that ET has increased over most of the land, decreased in some regions, and has not changed in some other regions
Tiehan Zhou, Kevin DallaSanta, Larissa Nazarenko, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Zhonghai Jin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7395–7407, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7395-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7395-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric radiative damping increases with rising CO2. Sensitivity experiments using the one-dimensional mechanistic models of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) indicate a shortening of the simulated QBO period due to the enhancing of the radiative damping. This result suggests that increasing radiative damping may play a role in determining the QBO period in a warming climate along with wave momentum flux entering the stratosphere and tropical vertical residual velocity.
Patricia K. Quinn, Elizabeth J. Thompson, Derek J. Coffman, Sunil Baidar, Ludovic Bariteau, Timothy S. Bates, Sebastien Bigorre, Alan Brewer, Gijs de Boer, Simon P. de Szoeke, Kyla Drushka, Gregory R. Foltz, Janet Intrieri, Suneil Iyer, Chris W. Fairall, Cassandra J. Gaston, Friedhelm Jansen, James E. Johnson, Ovid O. Krüger, Richard D. Marchbanks, Kenneth P. Moran, David Noone, Sergio Pezoa, Robert Pincus, Albert J. Plueddemann, Mira L. Pöhlker, Ulrich Pöschl, Estefania Quinones Melendez, Haley M. Royer, Malgorzata Szczodrak, Jim Thomson, Lucia M. Upchurch, Chidong Zhang, Dongxiao Zhang, and Paquita Zuidema
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 1759–1790, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1759-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1759-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
ATOMIC took place in the northwestern tropical Atlantic during January and February of 2020 to gather information on shallow atmospheric convection, the effects of aerosols and clouds on the ocean surface energy budget, and mesoscale oceanic processes. Measurements made from the NOAA RV Ronald H. Brown and assets it deployed (instrumented mooring and uncrewed seagoing vehicles) are described herein to advance widespread use of the data by the ATOMIC and broader research communities.
Johannes Horak, Marlis Hofer, Ethan Gutmann, Alexander Gohm, and Mathias W. Rotach
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1657–1680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This process-based evaluation of the atmospheric model ICAR is conducted to derive recommendations to increase the likelihood of its results being correct for the right reasons. We conclude that a different diagnosis of the atmospheric background state is necessary, as well as a model top at an elevation of at least 10 km. Alternative boundary conditions at the top were not found to be effective in reducing this model top elevation. The results have wide implications for future ICAR studies.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Anna Lea Albright, Benjamin Fildier, Ludovic Touzé-Peiffer, Robert Pincus, Jessica Vial, and Caroline Muller
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 617–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-617-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-617-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A number of climate mysteries are rooted in uncertainties in how clouds respond to their environment in the trades, the global belt of easterly winds. Differences in radiative heating play a role in the couplings between clouds and their environment. We calculate radiative profiles from 2580 dropsondes and radiosondes from the EUREC4A field campaign (downstream Atlantic trades, winter 2020). We describe the method, assess uncertainty, and discuss radiative heating variability on multiple scales.
Rhae Sung Kim, Sujay Kumar, Carrie Vuyovich, Paul Houser, Jessica Lundquist, Lawrence Mudryk, Michael Durand, Ana Barros, Edward J. Kim, Barton A. Forman, Ethan D. Gutmann, Melissa L. Wrzesien, Camille Garnaud, Melody Sandells, Hans-Peter Marshall, Nicoleta Cristea, Justin M. Pflug, Jeremy Johnston, Yueqian Cao, David Mocko, and Shugong Wang
The Cryosphere, 15, 771–791, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-771-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-771-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
High SWE uncertainty is observed in mountainous and forested regions, highlighting the need for high-resolution snow observations in these regions. Substantial uncertainty in snow water storage in Tundra regions and the dominance of water storage in these regions points to the need for high-accuracy snow estimation. Finally, snow measurements during the melt season are most needed at high latitudes, whereas observations at near peak snow accumulations are most beneficial over the midlatitudes.
Lukas Brunner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Anna L. Merrifield, Ruth Lorenz, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects of historical climate and their degree of interdependence. Our method is found to increase projection skill and to correct for structurally similar models. The weighted end-of-century mean warming (2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014) is 3.7 °C with a likely (66 %) range of 3.1 to 4.6 °C for the strong climate change scenario SSP5-8.5; this is a reduction of 0.4 °C compared with the unweighted mean.
Philip Goodwin, Martin Leduc, Antti-Ilari Partanen, H. Damon Matthews, and Alex Rogers
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5389–5399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5389-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5389-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical climate models are used to make projections of future surface warming for different pathways of future greenhouse gas emissions, where future surface warming will vary from place to place. However, it is so expensive to run complex models using supercomputers that future projections can only be produced for a small number of possible future emissions pathways. This study presents an efficient climate model to make projections of local surface warming using a desktop computer.
Anna Louise Merrifield, Lukas Brunner, Ruth Lorenz, Iselin Medhaug, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 807–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Justifiable uncertainty estimates of future change in northern European winter and Mediterranean summer temperature can be obtained by weighting a multi-model ensemble comprised of projections from different climate models and multiple projections from the same climate model. Weights reduce the influence of model biases and handle dependence by identifying a projection's model of origin from historical characteristics; contributions from the same model are scaled by the number of members.
César Deschamps-Berger, Simon Gascoin, Etienne Berthier, Jeffrey Deems, Ethan Gutmann, Amaury Dehecq, David Shean, and Marie Dumont
The Cryosphere, 14, 2925–2940, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2925-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2925-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate a recent method to map snow depth based on satellite photogrammetry. We compare it with accurate airborne laser-scanning measurements in the Sierra Nevada, USA. We find that satellite data capture the relationship between snow depth and elevation at the catchment scale and also small-scale features like snow drifts and avalanche deposits. We conclude that satellite photogrammetry stands out as a convenient method to estimate the spatial distribution of snow depth in high mountains.
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Cited articles
Abramowitz, G.: Model independence in multi-model ensemble prediction, Aust.
Meteorol. Ocean., 59, 3–6, 2010.
Abramowitz, G. and Gupta, H.: Toward a model space and model independence
metric, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L05705, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032834, 2008.
Abramowitz, G. and Bishop, C. H.: Climate Model Dependence and the Ensemble
Dependence Transformation of CMIP Projections, J. Climate, 28, 2332–2348,
2015.
Annan, J. D. and Hargreaves, J. C.: Reliability of the CMIP3 ensemble,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L02703, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041994, 2010.
Annan, J. D. and Hargreaves, J. C.: Understanding the CMIP3 ensemble, J.
Climate, 24, 4529–4538, 2011.
Annan, J. D. and Hargreaves, J. C.: On the meaning of independence in climate
science, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 211–224,
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-211-2017, 2017.
Ault, T. R., Cole, J. E., Overpeck, J. T., Pederson, G. T., St. George, S., Otto-Bliesner, B., Woodhouse, C. A., and Deser, C.: The continuum of hydroclimate
variability in western North America during the last millennium, J. Climate,
26, 5863–5878, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00732.1, 2013.
Bishop, C. H. and Abramowitz, G.: Climate model dependence and the replicate
Earth paradigm, Clim. Dynam., 41, 885–900, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1610-y, 2013.
Boé, J.: Interdependency in multi-model climate projections: component
replication and result similarity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2771–2779, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076829, 2018.
Boé, J. and Terray, L.: Can metric-based approaches really improve
multi-model climate projections? The case of summer temperature change in
France, Clim. Dynam., 45, 1913–1928, 2015.
BOX, G. E. P.: Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building, in:
Robustness in Statistics, edited by: Launer, R. L. and Wilkinson, G. N.,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1979.
Brier, G. W.: Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probabilities,
Mon. Weather Rev., 78, 1–3, 1950.
Brown, P. T., Ming, Y., Li, W., and Hill, S. A.: Change in the Magnitude and
Mechanisms of Global Temperature Variability With Warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 743–748, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3381, 2017.
Chamberlin, T. C.: The method of multiple working hypotheses, Science, 15,
92–96, 1890.
Chandler, R. E.: Exploiting strength, discounting weakness: combining
information from multiple climate simulators, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 371,
20120388, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0388, 2013.
Clark, M. P., Wilby, R. L., Gutmann, E. D., Vano, J. A., Gangopadhyay, S., Wood, A. W., Fowler, H. J.,
Prudhomme, C., Arnold, J. R., and Brekke, L. D.: Characterizing
Uncertainty of the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0034-x, 2016.
Collins, M., Tett, S. F. B., and Cooper, C.: The internal climate
variability of HadCM3, a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without
flux adjustments, Clim. Dynam., 17, 61–81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000094, 2001.
Collins, M., Booth, B. B., Bhaskaran, B., Harris, G. R., Murphy, J. M.,
Sexton, D. M. H., and Webb, M. J.: Climate model errors, feedbacks and
forcings: a comparison of perturbed physics and multi-model ensembles, Clim.
Dynam., 36, 1737–1766, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382- 010-0808-0, 2010.
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H.: Uncertainty in
climate change projections: The role of internal variability, Clim. Dynam.,
38, 527–546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x, 2012.
Deser, C., Terray, L., and Phillips, A. S.: Forced and internal components
of winter air temperature trends over north america during the past 50 years:
mechanisms and implications, J. Climate, 29, 2237–2258, 2016.
Edwards, P.: History of climate modeling, WIRES Clim. Change, 2, 128–139, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.95, 2011.
Ehret, U., Zehe, E., Wulfmeyer, V., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Liebert, J.: HESS
Opinions “Should we apply bias correction to global and regional climate
model data?”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3391–3404,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3391-2012, 2012.
Evans, J., Ji, F., Abramowitz, G., and Ekstrom, M.: Optimally choosing
small ensemble members to produce robust climate simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044050, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044050, 2013.
Gleckler, P., Taylor, K., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for climate
models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D06104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972, 2008.
Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. E.: Weather forecasting with ensemble
methods, Science, 310, 248–249, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115255, 2005.
Gupta, H. V., Bastidas, L. A., Sorooshian, S., Shuttleworth, W. J., and Yang, Z. L.: Parameter estimation of a land surface scheme using
multicriteria methods, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19491–19503, 1999.
Gutiérrez, J. M., Maraun, D., Widmann, M., Huth, R., Hertig, E., Benestad, R., Roessler, O., Wibig, J., Wilcke, R., Kotlarski, S.,
San Martín, D., Herrera, S., Bedia, J., Casanueva, A., Manzanas, R., Iturbide, M., Vrac, M., Dubrovsky, M., Ribalaygua, J., Pórtoles, J.,
Räty, O., Räisänen, J., Hingray, B., Raynaud, D., Casado, M. J., Ramos, P., Zerenner, T., Turco, M., Bosshard, T., Štěpánek, P.,
Bartholy, J., Pongracz, R., Keller, D. E., Fischer, A. M., Cardoso, R. M., Soares, P. M. M., Czernecki, B., and Pagé, C.:
An intercomparison of a large ensemble of
statistical downscaling methods over Europe: Results from the VALUE perfect
predictor cross-validation experiment, Int. J. Climatol., https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5462,
2018.
Hamill, T. M.: Interpretation of Rank Histograms for Verifying Ensemble
Forecasts, Mon. Weather Rev., 129, 550–560,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0550:IORHFV>2.0.CO;2,
2001.
Hamill, T. M., Mullen, S. L., Snyder, C., Baumhefner, D. P., and Toth, Z.: Ensemble forecasting in the short to medium range: Report from a workshop,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 81, 2653–2664, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081%3C2653:EFITST%3E2.3.CO;2, 2000.
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., Pitman, A., and Phipps, S.: On the generation
of climate model ensembles, Clim. Dynam., 43, 2297–2308,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2054-3, 2014.
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., Pitman, A., and Phipps, S. J.: Weighting
climate model ensembles for mean and variance
estimates, Clim. Dynam., 45, 3169–3181, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2531-3, 2015.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in
regional climate predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1107, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009bams2607.1, 2009.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in
projections of regional precipitation change, Clim. Dynam., 37, 407–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6, 2011.
Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K., and
Sanderson, B. M.: Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble
properties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151,
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018a.
Herger, N., Angélil, O., Abramowitz, G., Donat, M., Stone, D., and
Lehmann, K.: Calibrating climate model ensembles for assessing extremes in a
changing climate, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 5988–6004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028549,
2018b.
Hobeichi, S., Abramowitz, G., Evans, J., and Ukkola, A.: Derived Optimal
Linear Combination Evapotranspiration (DOLCE): a global gridded synthesis ET
estimate, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1317–1336,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1317-2018, 2018.
Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Balaji, V., Duan,
Q., Folini, D., Klocke, D. J. D., Qian, Y., Rauser, F., Rio, C., Tomassini,
L., Watanabe, M., and Williamson, D.: The art and science of climate model
tuning, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 589–602, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1,
2017.
Ince, D. C., Hatton, L., and Graham-Cumming, J.: The case for open computer
programs, Nature, 482, 485–488, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10836, 2012.
James, I. N. and James, P. M.: Ultra low frequency variability in a simple
global circulation model, Nature, 342, 53–55, https://doi.org/10.1038/342053a0, 1989.
Jun, M., Knutti, R., and Nychka, D.: Spatial analysis to quantify numerical
model bias and dependence: how many climate models are there?, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 103, 934–947, 2008a.
Jun, M., Knutti, R., and Nychka, D. W.: Local eigenvalue analysis of
CMIP3 climate model errors, Tellus, 60A, 992–1000, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2008.00356.x, 2008b.
Kay, J. E., Deser, C., Phillips, A., Mai, A., Hannay, C., Strand, G., Arblaster, J. M., and Bates, S. C.: The community earth system
model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying
climate change in the presence of internal climate variability, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1333–1349, 2015.
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., and Meehl, G. A.: Challenges in combining projections from multiple models, J. Climate, 23,
2739–2758, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1, 2010b.
Knutti, R., Masson, D., and Gettelman, A.: Climate model genealogy:
Generation CMIP5 and how we got there, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1194–1199, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50256,
2013.
Knutti, R., Sedláček, J., Sanderson, B. M., Lorenz, R., Fischer, E. M., and Eyring, V.: A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting
for performance and interdependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 1909–1918, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072012,
2017.
Kohonen, T.: Self-Organization and Associative Memory, Springer, New
York, 1989.
Langenbrunner, B. and Neelin, J. D.: Pareto-optimal estimates of
California precipitation change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
12436–12446, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075226, 2017.
Leduc, M., Matthews H. D., and de Elia, R.: Regional estimates of the
transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions, Nat. Clim. Change, 6,
474–478, 2016a.
Leduc, M., Laprise, R., De Elía, R., and Separovic, L.: Is
Institutional Democracy a Good Proxy for Model Independence?, J. Climate, 29,
8301–8316, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0761.1, 2016b.
Lenhard, J. and Winsberg, E.: Holism, entrenchment, and the future of climate
model pluralism, Stud. Hist. Philos. M. P., 41, 253–262, 2010.
Lorenz, R., Herger, N., Sedlaìček, J., Eyring, V., Fischer, E. M., and Knutti, R.: Prospects and caveats of weighting climate models for
summer maximum temperature projections over North America, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 4509–4526, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027992, 2018.
Macadam, I., Pitman, A. J., Whetton, P. H., and Abramowitz, G.: Ranking
climate models by performance using actual values and anomalies: Implications
for climate change impact assessments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L16704,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043877, 2010.
Maraun, D.: Bias Correcting Climate Change Simulations – a Critical
Review, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2, 211, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0050-x, 2016.
Masson, D. and Knutti, R.: Climate model genealogy, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
38, L08703, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864, 2011.
Mauritsen, T., Stevens, B., Roeckner, E., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Giorgetta,
M., Haak, H., Jungclaus, J., Klocke, D., Matei, D., Mikolajewicz, U., Notz,
D., Pincus, R., Schmidt, H., and Tomassini, L.: Tuning the climate of a
global model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 4,
M00A01, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012MS000154, 2012.
Murphy, A. H.: A new vector partition of the probability score,
J. Appl. Meteorol., 12, 595–600, 1973.
Nijsse, F. J. M. M. and Dijkstra, H. A.: A mathematical approach to
understanding emergent constraints, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 999–1012,
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-999-2018, 2018.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.: Verification,
Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences,
Science, 263, 641–646, 1994.
PAGES 2k Consortium: Continental-scale temperature variability during the
past two millennia, Nat. Geosci., 6, 339–346, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1797, 2103.
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., and Caldwell, P.: A Representative Democracy to
Reduce Interdependency in a Multimodel Ensemble, J. Climate, 28, 5171–5194,
2015a.
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., and Caldwell, P.: Addressing Interdependency in
a Multimodel Ensemble by Interpolation of Model Properties, J. Climate, 28,
5150–5170, 2015b.
Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M., and Knutti, R.: Skill and independence
weighting for multi-model assessments, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017.
Schmidt, G. A., Annan, J. D., Bartlein, P. J., Cook, B. I., Guilyardi, E.,
Hargreaves, J. C., Harrison, S. P., Kageyama, M., LeGrande, A. N., Konecky,
B., Lovejoy, S., Mann, M. E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Risi, C., Thompson, D.,
Timmermann, A., Tremblay, L.-B., and Yiou, P.: Using palaeo-climate
comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5, Clim. Past, 10,
221–250, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-221-2014, 2014.
Schmidt, G. A., Bader, D., Donner, L. J., Elsaesser, G. S., Golaz, J.-C.,
Hannay, C., Molod, A., Neale, R. B., and Saha, S.: Practice and philosophy of
climate model tuning across six US modeling centers, Geosci. Model Dev., 10,
3207–3223, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017, 2017.
Smith, R. L., Tebaldi, C., Nychka, D., and Mearns, L. O.: Bayesian Modeling
of Uncertainty in Ensembles of Climate Models, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 104,
97–116, 2009.
Tebaldi, C. and Knutti, R.: The use of the multimodel ensemble in
probabilistic climate projections, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 365, 2053–2075,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2076, 2007.
Weigel, A. P., Liniger, M. A., and Appenzeller, C.: The discrete Brier
and ranked probability skill scores, Mon. Weather Rev., 135, 118–124, 2007.
Weigel, A. P., Knutti, R., Liniger, M. A., and Appenzeller, C.: Risks of
Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections, J. Climate, 23, 4175–4191, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3594.1, 2010.
Wilks, D. S.: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences: An
Introduction, Academic Press, San Diego, 467 pp., 1995.
Short summary
Best estimates of future climate projections typically rely on a range of climate models from different international research institutions. However, it is unclear how independent these different estimates are, and, for example, the degree to which their agreement implies robustness. This work presents a review of the varied and disparate attempts to quantify and address model dependence within multi-model climate projection ensembles.
Best estimates of future climate projections typically rely on a range of climate models from...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint