Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
06 Aug 2024
Research article |
| 06 Aug 2024
| 06 Aug 2024
Exploration of diverse solutions for the calibration of imperfect climate models
Saloua Peatier
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
CERFACS/CECI, Toulouse, France
Benjamin M. Sanderson
Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
Laurent Terray
CERFACS/CECI, Toulouse, France
Related authors
No articles found.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for prediction and projection; characterization, attribution, and process understanding; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Ken S. Carslaw, Leighton A. Regayre, Ulrike Proske, Andrew Gettelman, David M. H. Sexton, Yun Qian, Lauren Marshall, Oliver Wild, Marcus van Lier-Walqui, Annika Oertel, Saloua Peatier, Ben Yang, Jill S. Johnson, Sihan Li, Daniel T. McCoy, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christina J. Williamson, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Kuniko Yamazaki, and Ben B. B. Booth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
A major challenge in climate science is reducing projection uncertainty despite advances in models and observational constraints. Perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) offer a powerful tool to explore and reduce uncertainty by revealing model weaknesses and guiding development. PPEs are now widely applied across climate systems and scales. We argue they should be prioritized alongside complexity and resolution in model resource planning.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 667–681, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here, we look at the entire SAI deployment from start to after termination. We show how the initial CO2 uptake benefit, and hence lower mitigation burden, is reduced in later stages of SAI, where the reduction in natural CO2 uptake turns into an additional mitigation burden.
Norman J. Steinert and Benjamin M. Sanderson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1714, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1714, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we explore how carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, known as the permafrost carbon feedback, affect two important climate metrics: how much the Earth warms per amount of carbon we emit, and how much warming continues after we stop emitting carbon. Our study tackles a major gap in how we estimate future climate change. Using simplified climate models, we find a generalizable relationship between the permafrost carbon feedback and its additional warming impact on climate.
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this article we present METEORv1.0.0, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spacially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables, and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology which consists of identifying patterns associated with various timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance.
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.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
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.
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The CICERO-SCM has existed as a Fortran model since 1999 that calculates the radiative forcing and concentrations from emissions and is an upwelling diffusion energy balance model of the ocean that calculates temperature change. In this paper, we describe an updated version ported to Python and publicly available at https://github.com/ciceroOslo/ciceroscm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720). This version contains functionality for parallel runs and automatic calibration.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Steve Delhaye, Rym Msadek, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
The climate impact of Arctic sea ice loss may depend on the region of sea ice loss and the methodology used to study this impact. This study uses two approaches across seven climate models to investigate the winter atmospheric circulation response to regional sea ice loss. Our findings indicate a consistent atmospheric circulation response to pan-Arctic sea ice loss in most models and across both approaches. In contrast, more uncertainty emerges in the responses linked to regional sea ice loss.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Benjamin M. Sanderson and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1715–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be expected in response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is generally calculated in climate models by extrapolating global average temperatures to a point of where the planet is no longer a net absorber of energy. Here we show that some climate models experience energy leaks which change as the planet warms, undermining the standard approach and biasing some existing model estimates of ECS.
Aurélien Ribes, Julien Boé, Saïd Qasmi, Brigitte Dubuisson, Hervé Douville, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1397–1415, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We use a novel statistical method to combine climate simulations and observations, and we deliver an updated assessment of past and future warming over France. As a key result, we find that the warming over that region was underestimated in previous multi-model ensembles by up to 50 %. We also assess the contribution of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other factors to the observed warming, as well as the impact on the seasonal temperature cycle, and we discuss implications for climate services.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Laurent Terray
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 971–989, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Attribution of the causes of extreme temperature events has become active research due to the wide-ranging impacts of recent heat waves and cold spells. Here we show that a purely observational approach based on atmospheric circulation analogues and resampling provides a robust quantification of the various dynamic and thermodynamic contributions to specific extreme temperature events. The approach can easily be integrated in the toolbox of any real-time extreme event attribution system.
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.
Camille Besombes, Olivier Pannekoucke, Corentin Lapeyre, Benjamin Sanderson, and Olivier Thual
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the potential of a type of deep generative neural network to produce realistic weather situations when trained from the climate of a general circulation model. The generator represents the climate in a compact latent space. It is able to reproduce many aspects of the targeted multivariate distribution. Some properties of our method open new perspectives such as the exploration of the extremes close to a given state or how to connect two realistic weather states.
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.
Katherine Dagon, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Rosie A. Fisher, and David M. Lawrence
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 6, 223–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in land model projections are important to understand in order to build confidence in Earth system modeling. In this paper, we introduce a framework for estimating uncertain land model parameters with machine learning. This method increases the computational efficiency of this process relative to traditional hand tuning approaches and provides objective methods to assess the results. We further identify key processes and parameters that are important for accurate land modeling.
Cited articles
Annan, J. D., Lunt, D. J., Hargreaves, J. C., and Valdes, P. J.: Parameter estimation in an atmospheric GCM using the Ensemble Kalman Filter, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 12, 363–371, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-12-363-2005, 2005. a
Balaji, V., Couvreux, F., Deshayes, J., Gautrais, J., Hourdin, F., and Rio, C.: Are general circulation models obsolete?, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2202075119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202075119, 2022. a
Bellprat, O., Kotlarski, S., Lüthi, D., and Schär, C.: Objective calibration of regional climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D23115, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018262, 2012. a, b
Bodman, R. W. and Jones, R. N.: Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity using observationally constrained simple climate models, WIRes Clim. Change, 7, 461–473, 2016. a
Chang, W., Haran, M., Olson, R., and Keller, K.: Fast dimension-reduced climate model calibration and the effect of data aggregation, Ann. Appl. Stat., 8, 649–673, 2014. a
Cui, M.: Introduction to the k-means clustering algorithm based on the elbow method, Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 1, 5–8, 2020. a
Dorheim, K., Link, R., Hartin, C., Kravitz, B., and Snyder, A.: Calibrating simple climate models to individual Earth system models: Lessons learned from calibrating Hector, Earth Space Sci., 7, e2019EA000980, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000980, 2020. a
Dunbar, O. R., Garbuno-Inigo, A., Schneider, T., and Stuart, A. M.: Calibration and uncertainty quantification of convective parameters in an idealized GCM, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002454, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002454, 2021. 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, Geoscientific Model Development, 9, 1937–1958, 2016. a
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D06104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972, 2008. a
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J. H., and Friedman, J. H.: The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, Vol. 2, Springer, New York, NY, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5, 2009. a
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., and Zelinka, M.: Climate simulations: recognize the “hot model” problem, Nature, 605, 26–29, 2022. a
Ho, C. K., Stephenson, D. B., Collins, M., Ferro, C. A., and Brown, S. J.: Calibration strategies: a source of additional uncertainty in climate change projections, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 21–26, 2012. a
Hourdin, F., Ferster, B., Deshayes, J., Mignot, J., Musat, I., and Williamson, D.: Toward machine-assisted tuning avoiding the underestimation of uncertainty in climate change projections, Sci. Adv., 9, eadf2758, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adf2758, 2023. a, b, c, d
Howland, M. F., Dunbar, O. R., and Schneider, T.: Parameter uncertainty quantification in an idealized GCM with a seasonal cycle, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002735, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002735, 2022. a, b
Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Bolvin, D. T., and Gu, G.: Improving the global precipitation record: GPCP version 2.1, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17808, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040000, 2009. a
Jewson, S.: An Alternative to PCA for Estimating Dominant Patterns of Climate Variability and Extremes, with Application to US and China Seasonal Rainfall, Atmosphere, 11, 354, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11040354, 2020. a
Li, S., Rupp, D. E., Hawkins, L., Mote, P. W., McNeall, D., Sparrow, S. N., Wallom, D. C. H., Betts, R. A., and Wettstein, J. J.: Reducing climate model biases by exploring parameter space with large ensembles of climate model simulations and statistical emulation, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3017–3043, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3017-2019, 2019. a
Lim, H. and Zhai, Z. J.: Comprehensive evaluation of the influence of meta-models on Bayesian calibration, Energ. Buildings, 155, 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.009, 2017. a
Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G., Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the earth’s radiant energy system (CERES) energy balanced and filled (EBAF) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) edition-4.0 data product, J. Climate, 31, 895–918, 2018. a, b
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 Sy., 4, M00A01, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012MS000154, 2012. a
McNeall, D., Williams, J., Booth, B., Betts, R., Challenor, P., Wiltshire, A., and Sexton, D.: The impact of structural error on parameter constraint in a climate model, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 917–935, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-917-2016, 2016. a, b
Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model description and calibration, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1417–1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011, 2011. a
Nan, D., Wei, X., Xu, J., Haoyu, X., and Zhenya, S.: CESMTuner: An auto-tuning framework for the community earth system model, in: 2014 IEEE Intl Conf on High Performance Computing and Communications, 2014 IEEE 6th Intl Symp on Cyberspace Safety and Security, 2014 IEEE 11th Intl Conf on Embedded Software and Syst (HPCC, CSS, ICESS), 282–289, IEEE, 2014. a
Nauels, A., Meinshausen, M., Mengel, M., Lorbacher, K., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Synthesizing long-term sea level rise projections – the MAGICC sea level model v2.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2495–2524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2495-2017, 2017. a
Neelin, J. D., Bracco, A., Luo, H., McWilliams, J. C., and Meyerson, J. E.: Considerations for parameter optimization and sensitivity in climate models, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 21349–21354, 2010. a
O'Lenic, E. A. and Livezey, R. E.: Practical considerations in the use of rotated principal component analysis (RPCA) in diagnostic studies of upper-air height fields, Mon. Weather Rev., 116, 1682–1689, 1988. a
Peatier, S.: speatier/CNRMppe_save: CNRMppe_save_v4 (Version v4), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6077885, 2022. a
Peatier, S.: speatier/CNRMppe_error_decomposition: CNRMppe_discrepancy_ESD2024 (Version v2), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12952951, 2024. a
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011. a
Price, A. R., Voutchkov, I., Pound, G. E., Edwards, N., Lenton, T. M., and Cox, S. J.: Multiobjective tuning of grid-enabled earth system models using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), in: 2006 Second IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science'06), 117–117, IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/E-SCIENCE.2006.261050, 2006. a
Ricciuto, D. M., Davis, K. J., and Keller, K.: A Bayesian calibration of a simple carbon cycle model: The role of observations in estimating and reducing uncertainty, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB2030, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002908, 2008. a
Roehrig, R., Beau, I., Saint-Martin, D., Alias, A., Decharme, B., Guérémy, J.-F., Voldoire, A., Abdel-Lathif, A. Y., Bazile, E., Belamari, S., Blein, S., Bouniol, D., Bouteloup, Y., Cattiaux, J., Chauvin, F., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Douville, H., Marquet, P., Michou, M., Nabat, P., Oudar, T., Peyrillé, P., Piriou, J.-M., Salas y Mélia, D., Séférian, R., and Sénési, S.: The CNRM global atmosphere model ARPEGE-Climat 6.3: Description and evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2020MS002075, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002075, 2020. a, b
Rohde, R. A. and Hausfather, Z.: The Berkeley Earth Land/Ocean Temperature Record, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3469–3479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3469-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H.-L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Kistler, R., Woollen, J., Behringer, D., Liu, H., Stokes, D., Grumbine, R., Gayno, G., Wang, J., Hou, Y.-T., Chuang, H.-y., Juang, H.-M. H., Sela, J., Iredell, M., Treadon, R., Kleist, D., Van Delst, P., Keyser, D., Derber, J., Ek, M., Meng, J., Wei, H., Yang, R., Lord, S., van den Dool, H., Kumar, A., Wang, W., Long, C., Chelliah, M., Xue, Y., Huang, B., Schemm, J.-K., Ebisuzaki, W., Lin, R., Xie, P., Chen, M., Zhou, S., Higgins, W., Zou, C.-Z., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Han, Y., Cucurull, L., Reynolds, R. W., Rutledge, G., and Goldberg, M.: The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1015–1058, 2010. a
Salter, J. M. and Williamson, D.: A comparison of statistical emulation methodologies for multi-wave calibration of environmental models, Environmetrics, 27, 507–523, 2016. 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
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. a
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, 2019. a
Williamson, D., Goldstein, M., Allison, L., Blaker, A., Challenor, P., Jackson, L., and Yamazaki, K.: History matching for exploring and reducing climate model parameter space using observations and a large perturbed physics ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 41, 1703–1729, 2013. a
Williamson, D. B., Blaker, A. T., and Sinha, B.: Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1789–1816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017, 2017. a
Zhou, T., Turner, A. G., Kinter, J. L., Wang, B., Qian, Y., Chen, X., Wu, B., Wang, B., Liu, B., Zou, L., and He, B.: GMMIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: Global Monsoons Model Inter-comparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3589–3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3589-2016, 2016. a
Short summary
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to data, time, and computational constraints. In this study, we propose a practical solution for finding diverse near-optimal solutions. We argue that the effective degrees of freedom in the model performance response to parameter input is relatively small. Comparably performing parameter configurations exist and showcase different trade-offs in model errors, providing insights for model development.
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint