Articles | Volume 11, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020
© Author(s) 2020. 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-11-995-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
13 Nov 2020
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 13 Nov 2020
| 13 Nov 2020
Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Angeline G. Pendergrass
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
now at: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Flavio Lehner
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
now at: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Anna L. Merrifield
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Ruth Lorenz
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Reto Knutti
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Related authors
Eva Holtanová, Jan Koláček, and Lukas Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3360, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3360, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
Our global analysis assess temperature annual cycle and its changes using an innovative statistical approach. We reveal, e.g., slight temperature decreases during the historical period in some parts of the year. Future projections show different rates of warming between seasons, resulting in changes in the amplitude. The diagnostics introduced here can be tailored for different purposes and applied to other climatic variables, without making any prior assumptions about the annual cycle shape.
Arim Yoon, Cathy Hohenegger, Jiawei Bao, and Lukas Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3221, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3221, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how removing the Amazon rainforest impacts extreme weather by using an advanced global model that resolves convection. Our results show deforestation significantly intensifies short but severe rainfall, leading to more frequent droughts and flooding. Temperatures rise sharply, creating dangerous heat conditions harmful to human health and productivity. Wind speeds drastically increase. These findings provide a stark warning of the effects of continuing deforestation of the Amazon.
Hans Segura, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Philipp Weiss, Sebastian K. Müller, Thomas Rackow, Junhong Lee, Edgar Dolores-Tesillos, Imme Benedict, Matthias Aengenheyster, Razvan Aguridan, Gabriele Arduini, Alexander J. Baker, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Eulàlia Baulenas, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Nils Brüggemann, Lukas Brunner, Suvarchal K. Cheedela, Sushant Das, Jasper Denissen, Ian Dragaud, Piotr Dziekan, Madeleine Ekblom, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Richard Forbes, Claudia Frauen, Lilli Freischem, Diego García-Maroto, Philipp Geier, Paul Gierz, Álvaro González-Cervera, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Ioan Hadade, Kerstin Haslehner, Shabeh ul Hasson, Jan Hegewald, Lukas Kluft, Aleksei Koldunov, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Shunya Koseki, Sergey Kosukhin, Josh Kousal, Peter Kuma, Arjun U. Kumar, Rumeng Li, Nicolas Maury, Maximilian Meindl, Sebastian Milinski, Kristian Mogensen, Bimochan Niraula, Jakub Nowak, Divya Sri Praturi, Ulrike Proske, Dian Putrasahan, René Redler, David Santuy, Domokos Sármány, Reiner Schnur, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Dorian Spät, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Adrian Tompkins, Alejandro Uribe, Mirco Valentini, Menno Veerman, Aiko Voigt, Sarah Warnau, Fabian Wachsmann, Marta Wacławczyk, Nils Wedi, Karl-Hermann Wieners, Jonathan Wille, Marius Winkler, Yuting Wu, Florian Ziemen, Janos Zimmermann, Frida A.-M. Bender, Dragana Bojovic, Sandrine Bony, Simona Bordoni, Patrice Brehmer, Marcus Dengler, Emanuel Dutra, Saliou Faye, Erich Fischer, Chiel van Heerwaarden, Cathy Hohenegger, Heikki Järvinen, Markus Jochum, Thomas Jung, Johann H. Jungclaus, Noel S. Keenlyside, Daniel Klocke, Heike Konow, Martina Klose, Szymon Malinowski, Olivia Martius, Thorsten Mauritsen, Juan Pedro Mellado, Theresa Mieslinger, Elsa Mohino, Hanna Pawłowska, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Abdoulaye Sarré, Pajam Sobhani, Philip Stier, Lauri Tuppi, Pier Luigi Vidale, Irina Sandu, and Bjorn Stevens
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The nextGEMS project developed two Earth system models that resolve processes of the order of 10 km, giving more fidelity to the representation of local phenomena, globally. In its fourth cycle, nextGEMS performed simulations with coupled ocean, land, and atmosphere over the 2020–2049 period under the SSP3-7.0 scenario. Here, we provide an overview of nextGEMS, insights into the model development, and the realism of multi-decadal, kilometer-scale simulations.
Nicola Maher, Adam S. Phillips, Clara Deser, Robert C. Jnglin Wills, Flavio Lehner, John Fasullo, Julie M. Caron, Lukas Brunner, and Urs Beyerle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new multi-model large ensemble archive (MMLEAv2) and introduce the newly updated Climate Variability Diagnostics Package version 6 (CVDPv6), which is designed specifically for use with large ensembles. For highly variable quantities, we demonstrate that a model might evaluate poorly or favourably compared to the single realisation of the world that the observations represent, highlighting the need for large ensembles for model evaluation.
Viet Dung Nguyen, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Katrin Nissen, Lukas Brunner, and Bruno Merz
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 10, 195–216, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel stochastic weather generator conditioned on circulation patterns and regional temperature, accounting for dynamic and thermodynamic atmospheric changes. We extensively evaluate the model for the central European region. It statistically downscales precipitation for future periods, generating long, spatially and temporally consistent series. Results suggest an increase in extreme precipitation over the region, offering key benefits for hydrological impact studies.
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.
Tamzin E. Palmer, Carol F. McSweeney, Ben B. B. Booth, Matthew D. K. Priestley, Paolo Davini, Lukas Brunner, Leonard Borchert, and Matthew B. Menary
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We carry out an assessment of an ensemble of general climate models (CMIP6) based on the ability of the models to represent the key physical processes that are important for representing European climate. Filtering the models with the assessment leads to more models with less global warming being removed, and this shifts the lower part of the projected temperature range towards greater warming. This is in contrast to the affect of weighting the ensemble using global temperature trends.
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.
Eva Holtanová, Jan Koláček, and Lukas Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3360, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3360, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
Our global analysis assess temperature annual cycle and its changes using an innovative statistical approach. We reveal, e.g., slight temperature decreases during the historical period in some parts of the year. Future projections show different rates of warming between seasons, resulting in changes in the amplitude. The diagnostics introduced here can be tailored for different purposes and applied to other climatic variables, without making any prior assumptions about the annual cycle shape.
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.
Arim Yoon, Cathy Hohenegger, Jiawei Bao, and Lukas Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3221, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3221, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how removing the Amazon rainforest impacts extreme weather by using an advanced global model that resolves convection. Our results show deforestation significantly intensifies short but severe rainfall, leading to more frequent droughts and flooding. Temperatures rise sharply, creating dangerous heat conditions harmful to human health and productivity. Wind speeds drastically increase. These findings provide a stark warning of the effects of continuing deforestation of the Amazon.
Peter Pfleiderer, Anna Merrifield, István Dunkl, Homer Durand, Enora Cariou, Julien Cattiaux, and Sebastian Sippel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2397, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Due to changes in atmospheric circulation some regions are warming quicker than others. Statistical methods are used to estimate how much of the local summer temperature trends are due to circulation changes. We evaluate these methods by comparing their estimates to special simulations representing only temperature changes related to circulation changes. By applying the methods to observations of 1979–2023 we find that half of the warming over parts of Europe is related to circulation changes.
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.
Hans Segura, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Philipp Weiss, Sebastian K. Müller, Thomas Rackow, Junhong Lee, Edgar Dolores-Tesillos, Imme Benedict, Matthias Aengenheyster, Razvan Aguridan, Gabriele Arduini, Alexander J. Baker, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Eulàlia Baulenas, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Nils Brüggemann, Lukas Brunner, Suvarchal K. Cheedela, Sushant Das, Jasper Denissen, Ian Dragaud, Piotr Dziekan, Madeleine Ekblom, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Richard Forbes, Claudia Frauen, Lilli Freischem, Diego García-Maroto, Philipp Geier, Paul Gierz, Álvaro González-Cervera, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Ioan Hadade, Kerstin Haslehner, Shabeh ul Hasson, Jan Hegewald, Lukas Kluft, Aleksei Koldunov, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Shunya Koseki, Sergey Kosukhin, Josh Kousal, Peter Kuma, Arjun U. Kumar, Rumeng Li, Nicolas Maury, Maximilian Meindl, Sebastian Milinski, Kristian Mogensen, Bimochan Niraula, Jakub Nowak, Divya Sri Praturi, Ulrike Proske, Dian Putrasahan, René Redler, David Santuy, Domokos Sármány, Reiner Schnur, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Dorian Spät, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Adrian Tompkins, Alejandro Uribe, Mirco Valentini, Menno Veerman, Aiko Voigt, Sarah Warnau, Fabian Wachsmann, Marta Wacławczyk, Nils Wedi, Karl-Hermann Wieners, Jonathan Wille, Marius Winkler, Yuting Wu, Florian Ziemen, Janos Zimmermann, Frida A.-M. Bender, Dragana Bojovic, Sandrine Bony, Simona Bordoni, Patrice Brehmer, Marcus Dengler, Emanuel Dutra, Saliou Faye, Erich Fischer, Chiel van Heerwaarden, Cathy Hohenegger, Heikki Järvinen, Markus Jochum, Thomas Jung, Johann H. Jungclaus, Noel S. Keenlyside, Daniel Klocke, Heike Konow, Martina Klose, Szymon Malinowski, Olivia Martius, Thorsten Mauritsen, Juan Pedro Mellado, Theresa Mieslinger, Elsa Mohino, Hanna Pawłowska, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Abdoulaye Sarré, Pajam Sobhani, Philip Stier, Lauri Tuppi, Pier Luigi Vidale, Irina Sandu, and Bjorn Stevens
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The nextGEMS project developed two Earth system models that resolve processes of the order of 10 km, giving more fidelity to the representation of local phenomena, globally. In its fourth cycle, nextGEMS performed simulations with coupled ocean, land, and atmosphere over the 2020–2049 period under the SSP3-7.0 scenario. Here, we provide an overview of nextGEMS, insights into the model development, and the realism of multi-decadal, kilometer-scale simulations.
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.
Nicola Maher, Adam S. Phillips, Clara Deser, Robert C. Jnglin Wills, Flavio Lehner, John Fasullo, Julie M. Caron, Lukas Brunner, and Urs Beyerle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3684, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new multi-model large ensemble archive (MMLEAv2) and introduce the newly updated Climate Variability Diagnostics Package version 6 (CVDPv6), which is designed specifically for use with large ensembles. For highly variable quantities, we demonstrate that a model might evaluate poorly or favourably compared to the single realisation of the world that the observations represent, highlighting the need for large ensembles for model evaluation.
Viet Dung Nguyen, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Katrin Nissen, Lukas Brunner, and Bruno Merz
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 10, 195–216, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-10-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel stochastic weather generator conditioned on circulation patterns and regional temperature, accounting for dynamic and thermodynamic atmospheric changes. We extensively evaluate the model for the central European region. It statistically downscales precipitation for future periods, generating long, spatially and temporally consistent series. Results suggest an increase in extreme precipitation over the region, offering key benefits for hydrological impact studies.
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.
Angeline G. Pendergrass, Michael P. Byrne, Oliver Watt-Meyer, Penelope Maher, and Mark J. Webb
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6365–6378, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6365-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6365-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The width of the tropical rain belt affects many aspects of our climate, yet we do not understand what controls it. To better understand it, we present a method to change it in numerical model experiments. We show that the method works well in four different models. The behavior of the width is unexpectedly simple in some ways, such as how strong the winds are as it changes, but in other ways, it is more complicated, especially how temperature increases with carbon dioxide.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
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.
Min-Seop Ahn, Paul A. Ullrich, Peter J. Gleckler, Jiwoo Lee, Ana C. Ordonez, and Angeline G. Pendergrass
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a framework for regional-scale evaluation of simulated precipitation distributions with 62 climate reference regions and 10 metrics and apply it to evaluate CMIP5 and CMIP6 models against multiple satellite-based precipitation products. The common model biases identified in this study are mainly associated with the overestimated light precipitation and underestimated heavy precipitation. These biases persist from earlier-generation models and have been slightly improved in CMIP6.
Tamzin E. Palmer, Carol F. McSweeney, Ben B. B. Booth, Matthew D. K. Priestley, Paolo Davini, Lukas Brunner, Leonard Borchert, and Matthew B. Menary
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We carry out an assessment of an ensemble of general climate models (CMIP6) based on the ability of the models to represent the key physical processes that are important for representing European climate. Filtering the models with the assessment leads to more models with less global warming being removed, and this shifts the lower part of the projected temperature range towards greater warming. This is in contrast to the affect of weighting the ensemble using global temperature trends.
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.
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.
Christina Heinze-Deml, Sebastian Sippel, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, and Nicolai Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4977–4999, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4977-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4977-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying dynamical and thermodynamical components of regional precipitation change is a key challenge in climate science. We introduce a novel statistical model (Latent Linear Adjustment Autoencoder) that combines the flexibility of deep neural networks with the robustness advantages of linear regression. The method enables estimation of the contribution of a coarse-scale atmospheric circulation proxy to daily precipitation at high resolution and in a spatially coherent manner.
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 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.
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. and Bishop, C. H.: Climate model dependence and the ensemble
dependence transformation of CMIP projections, J. Climate, 28, 2332–2348,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00364.1, 2015. a
Abramowitz, G., Herger, N., Gutmann, E., Hammerling, D., Knutti, R., Leduc, M., Lorenz, R., Pincus, R., and Schmidt, G. A.: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample
testing, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, 2019. a
Amos, M., Young, P. J., Hosking, J. S., Lamarque, J.-F., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Bekki, S., Deushi, M., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D., Kirner, O., Kunze, M., Marchand, M., Plummer, D. A., Saint-Martin, D., Sudo, K., Tilmes, S., and Yamashita, Y.: Projecting ozone hole recovery using an ensemble of chemistry–climate models weighted by model performance and independence, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9961–9977, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9961-2020, 2020. a
Andrews, T., Andrews, M. B., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Jones, G. S., Kuhlbrodt, T.,
Manners, J., Menary, M. B., Ridley, J., Ringer, M. A., Sellar, A. A., Senior,
C. A., and Tang, Y.: Forcings, Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity in HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 4377–4394, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001866, 2019. a
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. a
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. a, b
Boé, J.: Interdependency in Multimodel Climate Projections: Component
Replication and Result Similarity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2771–2779, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076829, 2018. a, b, c
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, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2445-5, 2015. a, b
Brunner, L., Hauser, M., Lorenz, R., and Beyerle, U.: The ETH Zurich CMIP6
next generation archive: technical documentation, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3734128, 2020a. a
Brunner, L., McSweeney, C., Ballinger, A. P., Hegerl, G. C., Befort, D. J.,
O'Reilly, C., Benassi, M., Booth, B., Harris, G., Lowe, J., Coppola, E.,
Nogherotto, R., Knutti, R., Lenderink, G., de Vries, H., Qasmi, S., Ribes,
A., Stocchi, P., and Undorf, S.: Comparing methods to constrain future European climate projections using a consistent framework, J. Climate, 33, 8671–8692, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0953.1, 2020b. a, b
Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Merrifield, A. L., and Sedlacek, J.: Climate model Weighting by Independence and Performance (ClimWIP): Code Freeze for Brunner et al. (2020) ESD, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4073039, 2020. a
Chen, X., Guo, Z., Zhou, T., Li, J., Rong, X., Xin, Y., Chen, H., and Su, J.:
Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks of a New Coupled Model CAMS-CSM to
Idealized CO2 Forcing: A Comparison with CMIP5 Models, J. Meteorol. Res., 33, 31–45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-019-8074-5, 2019. a
Cowtan, K.: The Climate Data Guide: Global surface temperatures: BEST:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures, available at: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-,
last access: 9 September 2019. a
C3S: ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global
climate, https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.f17050d7, 2017. a
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. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M., Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019. a
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S., Collins, W.,
Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., Eyring, V., Forest, C., Gleckler, P.,
Guilyardi, E., Jakob, C., Kattsov, V., Reason, C., and Rummukainen, M.:
Evaluation of Climate Models, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assess- ment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T., Qin,
D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013. a
Forster, P. M., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M., and Smith, C. J.: Latest
climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 7–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0660-0, 2020. a, b
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K.,
Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A.,
da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G. K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert,
S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The modern-era retrospective analysis
for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017. a
Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Bacmeister, J. T., Neale, R. B., Pendergrass, A. G., Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J., Fasullo, J. T., Bailey, D. A., Lawrence, D. M., and Mills, M. J.: High Climate Sensitivity in the Community Earth
System Model Version 2 (CESM2), Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 8329–8337, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083978, 2019. a
Giorgi, F. and Coppola, E.: Does the model regional bias affect the projected
regional climate change? An analysis of global model projections: A letter,
Climatic Change, 100, 787–795, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9864-z, 2010. a
Giorgi, F. and Mearns, L. O.: Calculation of average, uncertainty range, and
reliability of regional climate changes from AOGCM simulations via the
“Reliability Ensemble Averaging” (REA) method, J. Climate, 15, 1141–1158, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1141:COAURA>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a, b
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for
climate models, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 113, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972, 2008. a
GMAO: MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_slv_Nx: 2d,1-Hourly,Time-Averaged,Single-Level,Assimilation,Single-Level Diagnostics V5.12.4, available at: https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/api/jobs/results/ 5e7b68e9ed720b5795af914a (last access: 25 March 2020), 2015a. a
GMAO: MERRA-2 statD_2d_slv_Nx: 2d,Daily,Aggregated
Statistics,Single-Level,Assimilation,Single-Level Diagnostics V5.12.4,
available at: https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/api/jobs/results/ 5e7b648f4900ab500326d17e (last access: 25 March 2020), 2015b. a
Golaz, J. C., Caldwell, P. M., Van Roekel, L. P., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q.,
Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-Davis, X. S., Bader, D. C.,
Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M. A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Fyke, J. G., Griffin, B. M., Hannay, C., Harrop, B. E., Hoffman, M. J., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N., Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li, H. Y., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P. L., Mahajan, S., Maltrud, M. E., Mametjanov, A., McClean, J. L., McCoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S. F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Reeves Eyre, J. E., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D., Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X., Singh, B., Tang, J., Taylor, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Turner, A. K., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N., Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Yoon, J. H., Zelinka, M. D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and Evaluation at Standard Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 2089–2129, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603, 2019. a
Gutjahr, O., Putrasahan, D., Lohmann, K., Jungclaus, J. H., Von Storch, J. S., Brüggemann, N., Haak, H., and Stössel, A.: Max Planck Institute
Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2) for the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison
Project (HighResMIP), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3241–3281,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3241-2019, 2019. a
Hajima, T., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Abe, M., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Okajima, H., Ito, A., Takata, K., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2197–2244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2197-2020, 2020. a
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional
Climate Predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1108, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009. a, b
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. a, b
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. a
Hersbach, H.: Decomposition of the Continuous Ranked Probability Score for
Ensemble Prediction Systems, Weather Forecast., 15, 559–570,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0559:DOTCRP>2.0.CO;2, 2000. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, in: Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- mental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. a
Jiménez-de-la Cuesta, D. and Mauritsen, T.: Emergent constraints on
Earth's transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s global warming, Nat. Geosc., 12, 902–905, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0463-y, 2019. a, b
Kay, J. E., Deser, C., Phillips, A., Mai, A., Hannay, C., Strand, G.,
Arblaster, J. M., Bates, S. C., Danabasoglu, G., Edwards, J., Holland, M.,
Kushner, P., Lamarque, J. F., Lawrence, D., Lindsay, K., Middleton, A.,
Munoz, E., Neale, R., Oleson, K., Polvani, L., and Vertenstein, M.: 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, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1, 2015. a, b
Knutti, R.: The end of model democracy?, Climatic Change, 102, 395–404,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2, 2010. a
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., and Meehl, G. A.: Challenges
in combining projections from multiple climate models, J. Climate, 23, 2739–2758, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1, 2010. a, b
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., and Hegerl, G. C.: Beyond equilibrium climate
sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 10, 727–736, https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO3017, 2017a. a
Leduc, M., Laprise, R., de Elía, R., and Šeparović, 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, 2016. a
Lehner, F., Deser, C., Maher, N., Marotzke, J., Fischer, E. M., Brunner, L., Knutti, R., and Hawkins, E.: Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 491–508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020, 2020. a
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P., and Monahan, A. H.: Climate Model Projections of
21st Century Global Warming Constrained Using the Observed Warming Trend,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086757, 2020. a, b
Maher, N., Milinski, S., Suarez-Gutierrez, L., Botzet, M., Dobrynin, M.,
Kornblueh, L., Kröer, J., Takano, Y., Ghosh, R., Hedemann, C., Li, C.,
Li, H., Manzini, E., Notz, D., Putrasahan, D., Boysen, L., Claussen, M.,
Ilyina, T., Olonscheck, D., Raddatz, T., Stevens, B., and Marotzke, J.: The
Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble: Enabling the Exploration of Climate
System Variability, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 2050–2069, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001639, 2019. a, b
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R.,
Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S.,
Fläschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H., Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T.,
Jimenéz-de-la Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S.,
Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke,
J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Möbis, B.,
Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E., Nam, C. C., Notz, D., Nyawira, S. S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Popp, M.,
Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider, T.,
Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D., Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J. S., Tian, F., Voigt, A., Vrese,
P., Wieners, K. H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner, E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and
Its Response to Increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 998–1038, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400, 2019. a
Müllner, D.: Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering algorithms,
1–29, arxiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2378 (last access: 6 April 2020), 2011. a
Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f
O'Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter,
T. R., Mathur, R., and van Vuuren, D. P.: A new scenario framework for
climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways, Climatic Change, 122, 387–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2, 2014. a
Pennell, C. and Reichler, T.: On the Effective Number of Climate Models, J.
Climate, 24, 2358–2367, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3814.1, 2011. a
Ribes, A., Zwiers, F. W., Azaïs, J. M., and Naveau, P.: A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution, Clim. Dynam., 48, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6, 2017. a
Sanderson, B. and Wehner, M.: Appendix B. Model Weighting Strategy, Forth
Natl. Clim. Assess., 1, 436–442, https://doi.org/10.7930/J06T0JS3, 2017. a
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., and Caldwell, P.: A representative democracy to
reduce interdependency in a multimodel ensemble, J. Climate, 28, 5171–5194, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00362.1, 2015a. a
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., and Caldwell, P.: Addressing interdependency in
a multimodel ensemble by interpolation of model properties, J. Climate, 28, 5150–5170, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00361.1, 2015b. a
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. a, b, c
Selten, F. M., Bintanja, R., Vautard, R., and van den Hurk, B. J.: Future
continental summer warming constrained by the present-day seasonal cycle of
surface hydrology, Scient. Rep., 10, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61721-9, 2020. a
Semmler, T., Danilov, S., Gierz, P., Goessling, H., Hegewald, J., Hinrichs, C., Koldunov, N. V., Khosravi, N., Mu, L., and Rackow, T.: Simulations for CMIP6 with the AWI climate model AWI-CM-1-1, Earth Space Science Open Archive,
p. 48, https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10501538.1, 2019.
a
Sherwood, S., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M.,
Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J.,
Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L.,
Hausfather, Z., von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and
Zelinka, M. D.: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple
lines of evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019rg000678, 2020. a, b
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., Von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019. a
Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo,
K., Sekiguchi, M., Abe, M., Saito, F., Chikira, M., Watanabe, S., Mori, M.,
Hirota, N., Kawatani, Y., Mochizuki, T., Yoshimura, K., Takata, K., O'Ishi,
R., Yamazaki, D., Suzuki, T., Kurogi, M., Kataoka, T., Watanabe, M., and
Kimoto, M.: Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2727–2765, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019, 2019. a
Tebaldi, C. and Knutti, R.: The use of the multi-model ensemble in
probabilistic climate projections, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 365, 2053–2075,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2076, 2007. a
Tegegne, G., Kim, Y.-O., and Lee, J.-K.: Spatiotemporal reliability ensemble
averaging of multi‐model simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 12321–12330, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083053, 2019. a
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard,
K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J. F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., and Rose, S. K.: The
representative concentration pathways: An overview, Climatic Change, 109,
5–31, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z, 2011. a
Voldoire, A., Saint‐Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J., Michou, M., Moine, M., Nabat, P., Roehrig, R., Salas y Mélia, D., Séférian, R., Valcke, S., Beau, I., Belamari, S., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Cattiaux, J., Deshayes, J., Douville, H., Ethé, C., Franchistéguy, L., Geoffroy, O., Lévy, C., Madec, G., Meurdesoif, Y., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Sanchez‐Gomez, E., Terray, L., and Waldman, R.: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 2177–2213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683, 2019. a
Yang, Y.-M., Wang, B., Cao, J., Ma, L., and Li, J.: Improved historical
simulation by enhancing moist physical parameterizations in the climate system model NESM3.0, Clim. Dynam., 54, 3819–3840,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05209-2, 2020.
a
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H.,
Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The
meteorological research institute Earth system model version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0:
Description and basic evaluation of the physical component, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 97, 931–965, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051, 2019.
a
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po‐Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M.,
Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of Higher Climate
Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020. a, b
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.
In this study, we weight climate models by their performance with respect to simulating aspects...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint