Articles | Volume 16, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-475-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-16-475-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Perspective
| Highlight paper
| 
28 Mar 2025
Perspective | Highlight paper |
| 28 Mar 2025
| 28 Mar 2025
Potential for equation discovery with AI in the climate sciences
Climate System, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, UK
Andrew J. Nicoll
Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX1 3PU, UK
Cornelia Klein
Climate System, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, UK
Jawairia A. Ahmad
Climate System, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, UK
Related authors
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Paul David Longden Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate Tipping Points are not instantaneous upon crossing critical thresholds in global warming, as is often assumed. Instead, it is possible to temporarily overshoot a threshold without causing tipping, provided the duration of the overshoot is short. In this Idea, we demonstrate that restricting the time over 1.5 °C would considerably reduce tipping point risks.
Mark S. Williamson, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, and Femke J. M. M. Nijsse
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 829–852, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically weaker in the latest set of state-of-the-art climate models (CMIP6) compared to past sets (CMIP5). We look at why this weakening happened for one particular study (Cox et al, 2018) and attribute it to an assumption made in the theory that when corrected for restores there is a stronger relationship between predictor and ECS.
Emma L. Robinson, Chris Huntingford, Valyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and James M. Bullock
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5371–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CHESS-SCAPE is a suite of high-resolution climate projections for the UK to 2080, derived from United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18), designed to support climate impact modelling. It contains four realisations of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas levels (RCP2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), with and without bias correction to historical data. The variables are available at 1 km resolution and a daily time step, with monthly, seasonal and annual means and 20-year mean-monthly time slices.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Gang Liu, Shushi Peng, Chris Huntingford, and Yi Xi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1277–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Due to computational limits, lower-complexity models (LCMs) were developed as a complementary tool for accelerating comprehensive Earth system models (ESMs) but still lack a good precipitation emulator for LCMs. Here, we developed a data-calibrated precipitation emulator (PREMU), a computationally effective way to better estimate historical and simulated precipitation by current ESMs. PREMU has potential applications related to land surface processes and their interactions with climate change.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, Doug B. Clark, Chris Huntingford, Christopher M. Taylor, Pier Luigi Vidale, Patrick C. McGuire, Markus Todt, Sonja Folwell, Valiyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and Belinda E. Medlyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5567–5592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new representations of plant physiological processes into a land surface model. Including new biological understanding improves modelled carbon and water fluxes for the present in tropical and northern-latitude forests. Future climate simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of photosynthesis to temperature is important for modelling carbon cycle dynamics in a warming world. Accurate representation of these processes in models is necessary for robust predictions of climate change.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Chris Huntingford, Megan A. J. Brown, Rhys Whitley, and Ning Dong
Biogeosciences, 18, 787–804, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Initial evidence suggests human ignitions or landscape changes caused most Amazon fires during August 2019. However, confirmation is needed that meteorological conditions did not have a substantial role. Assessing the influence of historical weather on burning in an uncertainty framework, we find that 2019 meteorological conditions alone should have resulted in much less fire than observed. We conclude socio-economic factors likely had a strong role in the high recorded 2019 fire activity.
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
Jonathan R. Moore, Arthur P. K. Argles, Kai Zhu, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 17, 1013–1032, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1013-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1013-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The distribution of tree sizes across Amazonia can be fitted very well (for both trunk diameter and tree mass) by a simple equilibrium model assuming power law growth and size-independent mortality. We find tree growth to mirror some aspects of metabolic scaling theory and that there may be a trade-off between fast-growing, short-lived and longer-lived, slow-growing ones. Our Amazon mortality-to-growth ratio is very similar to US temperate forests, hinting at a universal property for trees.
Karina E. Williams, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, Camilla T. Mathison, Pete D. Falloon, Peter M. Cox, and Joon Kim
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Data from the First ISLSCP Field Experiment, 1987–1989, is used to assess how well the JULES land-surface model simulates water stress in tallgrass prairie vegetation. We find that JULES simulates a decrease in key carbon and water cycle variables during the dry period, as expected, but that it does not capture the shape of the diurnal cycle on these days. These results will be used to inform future model development as part of wider evaluation efforts.
Chris Huntingford, Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, and Stephen Sitch
Biogeosciences, 15, 5415–5422, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5415-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5415-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Raised ozone levels impact plant stomatal opening and thus photosynthesis. Most models describe this as a suppression of stomata opening. Field evidence suggests more complexity, as ozone damage may make stomatal response
sluggish. In some circumstances, this causes stomata to be more open – a concern during drought conditions – by increasing transpiration. To guide interpretation and modelling of field measurements, we present an equation for sluggish effects, via a single tau parameter.
Hui Yang and Chris Huntingford
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 491–497, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-491-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-491-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Major drought in East Africa at the end of 2016 caused severe famine and loss of life. We pose the following question: are increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human activity, making droughts such as this more likely? Computer models of the climate system are powerful tools to answer this. Scanning across a full set of these, we find that how future climate change will impact on East Africa ASO drought risk remains uncertain, in any particular year.
Przemyslaw Zelazowski, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, and Nathalie Schaller
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 541–560, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-541-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-541-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the calibration of the IMOGEN (Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies) impact modelling system against 22 global climate models (GCMs) in the CMIP3 database.
IMOGEN uses "pattern scaling" to emulate GCMs, and with such linearity enables projections to be made for alternative future scenarios of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It is also coupled to the JULES land surface model, to allow impact assessments.
IMOGEN uses "pattern scaling" to emulate GCMs, and with such linearity enables projections to be made for alternative future scenarios of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It is also coupled to the JULES land surface model, to allow impact assessments.
Chris Huntingford, Hui Yang, Anna Harper, Peter M. Cox, Nicola Gedney, Eleanor J. Burke, Jason A. Lowe, Garry Hayman, William J. Collins, Stephen M. Smith, and Edward Comyn-Platt
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 617–626, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-617-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-617-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Recent UNFCCC climate meetings have placed much emphasis on constraining global warming to remain below 2 °C. The 2015 Paris meeting went further and gave an aspiration to fulfil a 1.5 °C threshold. We provide a flexible set of algebraic global temperature profiles that stabilise to either target. This will potentially allow the climate research community to estimate local climatic implications for these temperature profiles, along with emissions trajectories to fulfil them.
Eleanor J. Burke, Altug Ekici, Ye Huang, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris Huntingford, Philippe Ciais, Pierre Friedlingstein, Shushi Peng, and Gerhard Krinner
Biogeosciences, 14, 3051–3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
There are large reserves of carbon within the permafrost which might be released to the atmosphere under global warming. Our models suggest this release may cause an additional global temperature increase of 0.005 to 0.2°C by the year 2100 and 0.01 to 0.34°C by the year 2300. Under climate mitigation scenarios this is between 1.5 and 9 % (by 2100) and between 6 and 16 % (by 2300) of the global mean temperature change. There is a large uncertainty associated with these results.
Stefan C. Dekker, Margriet Groenendijk, Ben B. B. Booth, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 525–533, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-525-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-525-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Our analysis allows us to infer maps of changing plant water-use efficiency (WUE) for 1901–2010, using atmospheric observations of temperature, humidity and CO2. Our estimated increase in global WUE is consistent with the tree-ring and eddy covariance data, but much larger than the historical WUE increases simulated by Earth System Models (ESMs). We therefore conclude that the effects of increasing CO2 on plant WUE are significantly underestimated in the latest climate projections.
S. Sitch, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gruber, S. D. Jones, G. Murray-Tortarolo, A. Ahlström, S. C. Doney, H. Graven, C. Heinze, C. Huntingford, S. Levis, P. E. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle, N. Zeng, A. Arneth, G. Bonan, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, F. Chevallier, P. Ciais, R. Ellis, M. Gloor, P. Peylin, S. L. Piao, C. Le Quéré, B. Smith, Z. Zhu, and R. Myneni
Biogeosciences, 12, 653–679, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-653-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-653-2015, 2015
G. D. Hayman, F. M. O'Connor, M. Dalvi, D. B. Clark, N. Gedney, C. Huntingford, C. Prigent, M. Buchwitz, O. Schneising, J. P. Burrows, C. Wilson, N. Richards, and M. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13257–13280, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13257-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13257-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
Globally, wetlands are a major source of methane, which is the second most important greenhouse gas. We find the JULES wetland methane scheme to perform well in general, although there is a tendency for it to overpredict emissions in the tropics and underpredict them in northern latitudes. Our study highlights novel uses of satellite data as a major tool to constrain land-atmosphere methane flux models in a warming world.
J. B. Fisher, M. Sikka, W. C. Oechel, D. N. Huntzinger, J. R. Melton, C. D. Koven, A. Ahlström, M. A. Arain, I. Baker, J. M. Chen, P. Ciais, C. Davidson, M. Dietze, B. El-Masri, D. Hayes, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, P. E. Levy, M. R. Lomas, B. Poulter, D. Price, A. K. Sahoo, K. Schaefer, H. Tian, E. Tomelleri, H. Verbeeck, N. Viovy, R. Wania, N. Zeng, and C. E. Miller
Biogeosciences, 11, 4271–4288, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4271-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4271-2014, 2014
C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. R. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, C. Enright, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. F. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. R. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 165–185, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013, 2013
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Lorenz Hänchen, Emily Potter, Cornelia Klein, Pierluigi Calanca, Fabien Maussion, Wolfgang Gurgiser, and Georg Wohlfahrt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3263, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3263, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In semi-arid regions, the timing and duration of the rainy season are crucial for agriculture. This study introduces a new framework for improving estimations of start and end of the rainy season by testing how well they fit local vegetation data. We improve the performance of existing methods and present a new one with higher performance. Our findings can help to make informed decisions about water usage, and the framework can be applied to other regions as well.
Paul David Longden Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3023, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate Tipping Points are not instantaneous upon crossing critical thresholds in global warming, as is often assumed. Instead, it is possible to temporarily overshoot a threshold without causing tipping, provided the duration of the overshoot is short. In this Idea, we demonstrate that restricting the time over 1.5 °C would considerably reduce tipping point risks.
Mark S. Williamson, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, and Femke J. M. M. Nijsse
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 829–852, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically weaker in the latest set of state-of-the-art climate models (CMIP6) compared to past sets (CMIP5). We look at why this weakening happened for one particular study (Cox et al, 2018) and attribute it to an assumption made in the theory that when corrected for restores there is a stronger relationship between predictor and ECS.
Emma L. Robinson, Chris Huntingford, Valyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and James M. Bullock
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5371–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CHESS-SCAPE is a suite of high-resolution climate projections for the UK to 2080, derived from United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18), designed to support climate impact modelling. It contains four realisations of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas levels (RCP2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), with and without bias correction to historical data. The variables are available at 1 km resolution and a daily time step, with monthly, seasonal and annual means and 20-year mean-monthly time slices.
Francis Nkrumah, Cornelia Klein, Kwesi Akumenyi Quagraine, Rebecca Berkoh-Oforiwaa, Nana Ama Browne Klutse, Patrick Essien, Gandomè Mayeul Leger Davy Quenum, and Hubert Azoda Koffi
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 773–788, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-773-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-773-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is not yet clear which variations in broader atmospheric conditions of the West African monsoon may lead to mesoscale convective system (MCS) occurrences in southern West Africa (SWA). In this study, we identified nine different weather patterns and categorized them as dry-, transition-, or monsoon-season types using a method called self-organizing maps (SOMs). It was revealed that a warmer Sahel region can create favourable conditions for MCS formation in SWA.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Julia Crook, Cornelia Klein, Sonja Folwell, Christopher M. Taylor, Douglas J. Parker, Adama Bamba, and Kouakou Kouadio
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 229–248, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-229-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-229-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We estimate recent deforestation in West Africa and use a climate model allowing explicit convection to determine impacts on early season rainfall. We find enhanced rainfall over deforestation, in line with recent observational results, due to changes in circulation rather than humidity, showing potential for future studies. Local changes depend on initial soil moisture, deforestation extent, and ocean proximity, with sea breezes shifting inland where surface friction decreased.
Gang Liu, Shushi Peng, Chris Huntingford, and Yi Xi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1277–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Due to computational limits, lower-complexity models (LCMs) were developed as a complementary tool for accelerating comprehensive Earth system models (ESMs) but still lack a good precipitation emulator for LCMs. Here, we developed a data-calibrated precipitation emulator (PREMU), a computationally effective way to better estimate historical and simulated precipitation by current ESMs. PREMU has potential applications related to land surface processes and their interactions with climate change.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, Doug B. Clark, Chris Huntingford, Christopher M. Taylor, Pier Luigi Vidale, Patrick C. McGuire, Markus Todt, Sonja Folwell, Valiyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and Belinda E. Medlyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5567–5592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new representations of plant physiological processes into a land surface model. Including new biological understanding improves modelled carbon and water fluxes for the present in tropical and northern-latitude forests. Future climate simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of photosynthesis to temperature is important for modelling carbon cycle dynamics in a warming world. Accurate representation of these processes in models is necessary for robust predictions of climate change.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Chris Huntingford, Megan A. J. Brown, Rhys Whitley, and Ning Dong
Biogeosciences, 18, 787–804, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Initial evidence suggests human ignitions or landscape changes caused most Amazon fires during August 2019. However, confirmation is needed that meteorological conditions did not have a substantial role. Assessing the influence of historical weather on burning in an uncertainty framework, we find that 2019 meteorological conditions alone should have resulted in much less fire than observed. We conclude socio-economic factors likely had a strong role in the high recorded 2019 fire activity.
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
Jonathan R. Moore, Arthur P. K. Argles, Kai Zhu, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 17, 1013–1032, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1013-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1013-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The distribution of tree sizes across Amazonia can be fitted very well (for both trunk diameter and tree mass) by a simple equilibrium model assuming power law growth and size-independent mortality. We find tree growth to mirror some aspects of metabolic scaling theory and that there may be a trade-off between fast-growing, short-lived and longer-lived, slow-growing ones. Our Amazon mortality-to-growth ratio is very similar to US temperate forests, hinting at a universal property for trees.
Karina E. Williams, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, Camilla T. Mathison, Pete D. Falloon, Peter M. Cox, and Joon Kim
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Data from the First ISLSCP Field Experiment, 1987–1989, is used to assess how well the JULES land-surface model simulates water stress in tallgrass prairie vegetation. We find that JULES simulates a decrease in key carbon and water cycle variables during the dry period, as expected, but that it does not capture the shape of the diurnal cycle on these days. These results will be used to inform future model development as part of wider evaluation efforts.
Chris Huntingford, Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, and Stephen Sitch
Biogeosciences, 15, 5415–5422, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5415-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5415-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Raised ozone levels impact plant stomatal opening and thus photosynthesis. Most models describe this as a suppression of stomata opening. Field evidence suggests more complexity, as ozone damage may make stomatal response
sluggish. In some circumstances, this causes stomata to be more open – a concern during drought conditions – by increasing transpiration. To guide interpretation and modelling of field measurements, we present an equation for sluggish effects, via a single tau parameter.
Dominikus Heinzeller, Diarra Dieng, Gerhard Smiatek, Christiana Olusegun, Cornelia Klein, Ilse Hamann, Seyni Salack, Jan Bliefernicht, and Harald Kunstmann
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 815–835, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-815-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-815-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change and population growth pose severe challenges to 21st century rural Africa. Within the framework of the West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate change simulations is provided to support adaptation and mitigation measures. This contribution presents the concept and design of the simulations and provides information on the format and dissemination of the available data.
Hui Yang and Chris Huntingford
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 491–497, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-491-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-491-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Major drought in East Africa at the end of 2016 caused severe famine and loss of life. We pose the following question: are increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human activity, making droughts such as this more likely? Computer models of the climate system are powerful tools to answer this. Scanning across a full set of these, we find that how future climate change will impact on East Africa ASO drought risk remains uncertain, in any particular year.
Przemyslaw Zelazowski, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, and Nathalie Schaller
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 541–560, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-541-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-541-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the calibration of the IMOGEN (Integrated Model Of Global Effects of climatic aNomalies) impact modelling system against 22 global climate models (GCMs) in the CMIP3 database.
IMOGEN uses "pattern scaling" to emulate GCMs, and with such linearity enables projections to be made for alternative future scenarios of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It is also coupled to the JULES land surface model, to allow impact assessments.
IMOGEN uses "pattern scaling" to emulate GCMs, and with such linearity enables projections to be made for alternative future scenarios of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It is also coupled to the JULES land surface model, to allow impact assessments.
Chris Huntingford, Hui Yang, Anna Harper, Peter M. Cox, Nicola Gedney, Eleanor J. Burke, Jason A. Lowe, Garry Hayman, William J. Collins, Stephen M. Smith, and Edward Comyn-Platt
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 617–626, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-617-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-617-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Recent UNFCCC climate meetings have placed much emphasis on constraining global warming to remain below 2 °C. The 2015 Paris meeting went further and gave an aspiration to fulfil a 1.5 °C threshold. We provide a flexible set of algebraic global temperature profiles that stabilise to either target. This will potentially allow the climate research community to estimate local climatic implications for these temperature profiles, along with emissions trajectories to fulfil them.
Eleanor J. Burke, Altug Ekici, Ye Huang, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris Huntingford, Philippe Ciais, Pierre Friedlingstein, Shushi Peng, and Gerhard Krinner
Biogeosciences, 14, 3051–3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
There are large reserves of carbon within the permafrost which might be released to the atmosphere under global warming. Our models suggest this release may cause an additional global temperature increase of 0.005 to 0.2°C by the year 2100 and 0.01 to 0.34°C by the year 2300. Under climate mitigation scenarios this is between 1.5 and 9 % (by 2100) and between 6 and 16 % (by 2300) of the global mean temperature change. There is a large uncertainty associated with these results.
Stefan C. Dekker, Margriet Groenendijk, Ben B. B. Booth, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 525–533, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-525-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-525-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Our analysis allows us to infer maps of changing plant water-use efficiency (WUE) for 1901–2010, using atmospheric observations of temperature, humidity and CO2. Our estimated increase in global WUE is consistent with the tree-ring and eddy covariance data, but much larger than the historical WUE increases simulated by Earth System Models (ESMs). We therefore conclude that the effects of increasing CO2 on plant WUE are significantly underestimated in the latest climate projections.
S. Sitch, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gruber, S. D. Jones, G. Murray-Tortarolo, A. Ahlström, S. C. Doney, H. Graven, C. Heinze, C. Huntingford, S. Levis, P. E. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle, N. Zeng, A. Arneth, G. Bonan, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, F. Chevallier, P. Ciais, R. Ellis, M. Gloor, P. Peylin, S. L. Piao, C. Le Quéré, B. Smith, Z. Zhu, and R. Myneni
Biogeosciences, 12, 653–679, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-653-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-653-2015, 2015
G. D. Hayman, F. M. O'Connor, M. Dalvi, D. B. Clark, N. Gedney, C. Huntingford, C. Prigent, M. Buchwitz, O. Schneising, J. P. Burrows, C. Wilson, N. Richards, and M. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13257–13280, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13257-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13257-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
Globally, wetlands are a major source of methane, which is the second most important greenhouse gas. We find the JULES wetland methane scheme to perform well in general, although there is a tendency for it to overpredict emissions in the tropics and underpredict them in northern latitudes. Our study highlights novel uses of satellite data as a major tool to constrain land-atmosphere methane flux models in a warming world.
J. B. Fisher, M. Sikka, W. C. Oechel, D. N. Huntzinger, J. R. Melton, C. D. Koven, A. Ahlström, M. A. Arain, I. Baker, J. M. Chen, P. Ciais, C. Davidson, M. Dietze, B. El-Masri, D. Hayes, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, P. E. Levy, M. R. Lomas, B. Poulter, D. Price, A. K. Sahoo, K. Schaefer, H. Tian, E. Tomelleri, H. Verbeeck, N. Viovy, R. Wania, N. Zeng, and C. E. Miller
Biogeosciences, 11, 4271–4288, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4271-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4271-2014, 2014
C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. R. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, C. Enright, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. F. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. R. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 165–185, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013, 2013
Cited articles
Abrams, J. F., Huntingford, C., Williamson, M. S., McKay, D. I. A., Boulton, C. A., Buxton, J. E., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., Zimm, C., Winkelmann, R., and Lenton, T. M.: Committed Global Warming Risks Triggering Multiple Climate Tipping Points, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003250, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003250, 2023. a
Aldeia, G. and De França, F.: Measuring Feature Importance of Symbolic Regression Models Using Partial Effects, in: 2021 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '21), 10–14 July 2021, Lille, France, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pp., https://doi.org/10.1145/3449639.3459302, 2021. a
Baldocchi, D., Falge, E., Gu, L. H., Olson, R., Hollinger, D., Running, S., Anthoni, P., Bernhofer, C., Davis, K., Evans, R., Fuentes, J., Goldstein, A., Katul, G., Law, B., Lee, X. H., Malhi, Y., Meyers, T., Munger, W., Oechel, W., U, K. T. P., Pilegaard, K., Schmid, H. P., Valentini, R., Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K., and Wofsy, S.: FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 2415–2434, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2, 2001. a, b
Bao, J., Stevens, B., Kluft, L., and Muller, C.: Intensification of daily tropical precipitation extremes from more organized convection, Science Adv., 10, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj6801, 2024. a
Berliner, L. M., Levine, R. A., and Shea, D. J.: Bayesian climate change assessment, J. Climate, 13, 3805–3820, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3805:BCCA>2.0.CO;2, 2000. a
Bi, K., Xie, L., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Gu, X., and Tian, Q.: Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks, Nature, 619, 533–538, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06185-3, 2023. a, b, c
Bjerknes, J.: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific, Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1969)097<0163:ATFTEP>2.3.CO;2, 1969. a
Bjordal, J., Storelvmo, T., Alterskjaer, K., and Carlsen, T.: Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback, Nat. Geosci., 13, 718–721, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1, 2020. a
Blyth, E. M., Arora, V. K., Clark, D. B., Dadson, S. J., De Kauwe, M. G., Lawrence, D. M., Melton, J. R., Pongratz, J., Turton, R. H., Yoshimura, K., and Yuan, H.: Advances in Land Surface Modelling, Curr. Climate Change Rep., 7, 45–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00171-5, 2021. a
Boulanger, J.-P., Martinez, F., and Segura, E. C.: Projection of future climate change conditions using IPCC simulations, neural networks and Bayesian statistics. Part 1: Temperature mean state and seasonal cycle in South America, Clim. Dynam., 27, 233–259, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0182-0, 2006. a
Brunton, S. L. and Kutz, J. N.: Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edn., https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108380690, 2022. a, b, c, d
Canadell, J. G., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Field, C. B., Buitenhuis, E. T., Ciais, P., Conway, T. J., Gillett, N. P., Houghton, R. A., and Marland, G.: Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 104, 18866–18870, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104, 2007. a
Cao, Q., Goswami, S., and Karniadakis, G.: LNO: Laplace Neural Operator for Solving Differential Equations, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.10528, 2023. a, b
Champion, K., Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N., and Brunton, S. L.: Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 116, 22445–22451, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906995116, 2019. a
Chandra, N., Patra, P. K., Niwa, Y., Ito, A., Iida, Y., Goto, D., Morimoto, S., Kondo, M., Takigawa, M., Hajima, T., and Watanabe, M.: Estimated regional CO2 flux and uncertainty based on an ensemble of atmospheric CO2 inversions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9215–9243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9215-2022, 2022. a, b
Chen, B., Coops, N. C., Fu, D., Margolis, H. A., Amiro, B. D., Barr, A. G., Black, T. A., Arain, M. A., Bourque, C. P.-A., Flanagan, L. B., Lafleur, P. M., McCaughey, J. H., and Wofsy, S. C.: Assessing eddy-covariance flux tower location bias across the Fluxnet-Canada Research Network based on remote sensing and footprint modelling, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151, 87–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.09.005, 2011. a
Chen, L., Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Osman, A. I., Farghali, M., Hua, J., Al-Fatesh, A., Ihara, I., Rooney, D. W., and Yap, P.-S.: Artificial intelligence-based solutions for climate change: a review, Environ. Chem. Lett., 21, 2525–2557, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01617-y, 2023. a
Chen, Z. and Liu, B.: Lifelong machine learning, volume 1, Springer, https://doi.org/10.2200/S00737ED1V01Y201610AIM033, 2018. a
Chen, Z., Liu, Y., and Sun, H.: Physics-informed learning of governing equations from scarce data, Nat. Commun., 12, 6136, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26434-1, 2021. a
Choi, J., An, S. I., and Yeh, S. W.: Decadal amplitude modulation of two types of ENSO and its relationship with the mean state, Clim. Dynam., 38, 2632–2644, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1186-y, 2012. a
Copernicus Sentinel-2 (processed by ESA): MSI Level-2A BOA Reflectance Product, Collection 1, European Space Agency [data set], https://doi.org/10.5270/S2_-znk9xsj, 2021. a, b, c
Copernicus Sentinel Hub: Application interface to the Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem, https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/ (last access: 25 March 2025), 2023. a
Davies-Barnard, T., Zaehle, S., and Friedlingstein, P.: Assessment of the impacts of biological nitrogen fixation structural uncertainty in CMIP6 earth system models, Biogeosciences, 19, 3491–3503, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3491-2022, 2022. a
Delaunay, A. and Christensen, H. M.: Interpretable Deep Learning for Probabilistic MJO Prediction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098566, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098566, 2022. a
Dijkstra, H. A.: Nonlinear Climate Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034135, 2013. a
Drijfhout, S., Bathiany, S., Beaulieu, C., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Huntingford, C., Scheffer, M., Sgubin, G., and Swingedouw, D.: Catalogue of abrupt shifts in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 112, E5777–E5786, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511451112, 2015. a
Dufresne, J.-L. and Bony, S.: An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models, J. Climate, 21, 5135–5144, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2239.1, 2008. a
Ebert-Uphoff, I. and Deng, Y.: Causal discovery for climate research using graphical models, J. Climate, 25, 5648–5665, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00387.1, 2012. a
Eusebi, R., Vecchi, G. A., Lai, C. Y., and Tong, M.: Realistic tropical cyclone wind and pressure fields can be reconstructed from sparse data using deep learning, Commun. Earth Env., 5, 8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01144-2, 2024. 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., Collins, W. D., Gentine, P., Barnes, E. A., Barreiro, M., Beucler, T., Bocquet, M., Bretherton, C. S., Christensen, H. M., Dagon, K., Gagne, D. J., Hall, D., Hammerling, D., Hoyer, S., Iglesias-Suarez, F., Lopez-Gomez, I., McGraw, M. C., Meehl, G. A., Molina, M. J., Monteleoni, C., Mueller, J., Pritchard, M. S., Rolnick, D., Runge, J., Stier, P., Watt-Meyer, O., Weigel, K., Yu, R., and Zanna, L.: Pushing the frontiers in climate modelling and analysis with machine learning, Nat. Clim. Change, 14, 916–928, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02095-y, 2024. a, b
Farquhar, G. D., Caemmerer, S. V., and Berry, J. A.: A biochemical-model of photosynthetic co2 assimilation in leaves of C-3 species, Planta, 149, 78–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386231, 1980. a
Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J.-L., Frame, D., Lunt, D. J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer, M. D., Watanabe, M., Wild, M., and Zhang, H.: The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 923–1054, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009, 2021. a
Fosser, G., Khodayar, S., and Berg, P.: Benefit of convection permitting climate model simulations in the representation of convective precipitation, Clim. Dynam., 44, 45–60, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2242-1, 2015. a
Fosser, G., Gaetani, M., Kendon, E. J., Adinolfi, M., Ban, N., Belušić, D., Caillaud, C., Careto, J. A., Coppola, E., Demory, M. E., de Vries, H., Dobler, A., Feldmann, H., Goergen, K., Lenderink, G., Pichelli, E., Schär, C., Soares, P. M., Somot, S., and Tölle, M. H.: Convection-permitting climate models offer more certain extreme rainfall projections, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 7, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00600-w, 2024. a
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Benoit-Cattin, A., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Bultan, S., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Evans, W., Florentie, L., Forster, P. M., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D., Gkritzalis, T., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Harris, I., Hartung, K., Haverd, V., Houghton, R. A., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kitidis, V., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Smith, A. J. P., Sutton, A. J., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G., Vuichard, N., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Watson, A. J., Willis, D., Wiltshire, A. J., Yuan, W., Yue, X., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020. a
Grundner, A., Beucler, T., Gentine, P., and Eyring, V.: Data‐Driven Equation Discovery of a Cloud Cover Parameterization, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 16, e2023MS003763, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003763, 2024. a, b
Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C., and Klein, S.: Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 269–278, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0436-6, 2019. a
Hannachi, A., Jolliffe, I. T., and Stephenson, D. B.: Empirical orthogonal functions and related techniques in atmospheric science: A review, Int. J. Climatol., 27, 1119–1152, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1499, 2007. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horanyi, A., Munoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Holm, E., Janiskova, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thepaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hsieh, W. W.: Machine Learning Methods in the Environmental Sciences: Neural Networks and Kernels, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627217, 2009. a, b, c
Huntingford, C., Allen, S. J., and Harding, R. J.: An intercomparison of single and dual-source vegetation-atmosphere transfer models applied to transpiration from Sahelian savanna, Bound-Lay. Meteorol., 74, 397–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00712380, 1995. a
Huntingford, C., Lowe, J. A., Booth, B. B. B., Jones, C. D., Harris, G. R., Gohar, L. K., and Meir, P.: Contributions of carbon cycle uncertainty to future climate projection spread, Tellus B, 61, 355–360, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00414.x, 2009. a
Huntingford, C., Jeffers, E. S., Bonsall, M. B., Christensen, H. M., Lees, T., and Yang, H.: Machine learning and artificial intelligence to aid climate change research and preparedness, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 124007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4e55, 2019. a, b
Huntingford, C., Cox, P. M., Williamson, M. S., Clarke, J. J., and Ritchie, P. D. L.: Emergent constraints for the climate system as effective parameters of bulk differential equations, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021. a
Jebeile, J., Lam, V., Majszak, M., and Räz, T.: Machine learning and the quest for objectivity in climate model parameterization, Climatic Change, 176, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03532-1, 2023. a
Jin, F.-F.: An Equatorial Ocean Recharge Paradigm for ENSO. Part I: Conceptual Model, J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 811–829, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0811:AEORPF>2.0.CO;2, 1997. a, b
Jin, F.-F. and An, S.-I.: Thermocline and Zonal Advective Feedbacks Within the Equatorial Ocean Recharge Oscillator Model for ENSO, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2989–2992, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL002297, 1999. a
Jin, F.-F., Chen, H.-C., Zhao, S., Hayashi, M., Karamperidou, C., Stuecker, M. F., Xie, R., and Geng, L.: Simple ENSO Models, chap. 6, American Geophysical Union (AGU), 119–151, ISBN 9781119548164, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch6, 2020. a
Jones, N.: Machine learning tapped to improve climate forecasts, Nature, 548, 379–380, https://doi.org/10.1038/548379a, 2017. a
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., Ichii, K., Gans, F., Camps-Valls, G., Papale, D., Schwalm, C., Tramontana, G., and Reichstein, M.: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Scientific Data, 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019. a
Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020, 2020. a
Kaack, L. H., Donti, P. L., Strubell, E., Kamiya, G., Creutzig, F., and Rolnick, D.: Aligning artificial intelligence with climate change mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 518–527, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01377-7, 2022. a
Kaptanoglu, A. A., Callaham, J. L., Aravkin, A., Hansen, C. J., and Brunton, S. L.: Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics, Phys. Rev. Fluids, 6, 094401, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.094401, 2021. a
Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., and Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning, Nat. Rev. Phys., 3, 422–440, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5, 2021. a, b, c
Kashinath, K., Mustafa, M., Albert, A., Wu, J. L., Jiang, C., Esmaeilzadeh, S., Azizzadenesheli, K., Wang, R., Chattopadhyay, A., Singh, A., Manepalli, A., Chirila, D., Yu, R., Walters, R., White, B., Xiao, H., Tchelepi, H. A., Marcus, P., Anandkumar, A., Hassanzadeh, P., and Prabhat: Physics-informed machine learning: case studies for weather and climate modelling, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, 20200093, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0093, 2021. a
Kendon, E. J., Ban, N., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J., Roberts, M. J., Chan, S. C., Evans, J. P., Fosser, G., and Wilkinson, J. M.: Do convection-permitting regional climate models improve projections of future precipitation change?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 79–93, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-0004.1, 2017. a
Kendon, E. J., Prein, A. F., Senior, C. A., and Stirling, A.: Challenges and outlook for convection-permitting climate modelling, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, 20190547, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0547, 2021. a
Keren, L., Liberzon, A., and Lazebnik, T. A.: computational framework for physics-informed symbolic regression with straightforward integration of domain knowledge, Sci. Rep.-UK, 13, 1249, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28328-2, 2023. a
Klein, C., Jackson, L. S., Parker, D. J., Marsham, J. H., Taylor, C. M., Rowell, D. P., Guichard, F. F., Vischel, T. T., Famien, A. M. M. L., and Diedhiou, A.: Combining CMIP data with a regional convection-permitting model and observations to project extreme rainfall under climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 104023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac26f1, 2021. a
Kodra, E., Bhatia, U., Chatterjee, S., Chen, S., and Ganguly, A. R.: Physics-guided probabilistic modeling of extreme precipitation under climate change, Sci. Rep.-UK., 10, 10299, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67088-1, 2020. a
Kondo, M., Patra, P. K., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Poulter, B., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., Bastos, A., Lauerwald, R., Calle, L., Ichii, K., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Kautz, M., Law, R. M., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Maki, T., Nakamura, T., Peylin, P., Rödenbeck, C., Zhuravlev, R., Saeki, T., Tian, H., Zhu, D., and Ziehn, T.: State of the science in reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches for terrestrial CO2 budget, Glob. Change Biol., 26, 1068–1084, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917, 2020. a
Kuehl, N., Schemmer, M., Goutier, M., and Satzger, G.: Artificial intelligence and machine learning, Electronic Mark., 32, 2235–2244, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00598-0, 2022. a
Lam, R., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Willson, M., Wirnsberger, P., Fortunato, M., Alet, F., Ravuri, S., Ewalds, T., Eaton-Rosen, Z., Hu, W., Merose, A., Hoyer, S., Holland, G., Vinyals, O., Stott, J., Pritzel, A., Mohamed, S., and Battaglia, P.: Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting, Science, 382, 1416–1421, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi2336, 2023. a, b, c
Lenderink, G. and Fowler, H. J.: Understanding rainfall extremes, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 391–393, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3305, 2017. a
Lenderink, G., Barbero, R., Loriaux, J. M., and Fowler, H. J.: Super-Clausius-Clapeyron Scaling of Extreme Hourly Convective Precipitation and Its Relation to Large-Scale Atmospheric Conditions, J. Climate, 30, 6037–6052, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0808.1, 2017. a
Linardatos, P., Papastefanopoulos, V., and Kotsiantis, S.: Explainable AI: A Review of Machine Learning Interpretability Methods, Entropy, 23, https://doi.org/10.3390/e23010018, 2021. a
Lorenz, E. N.: Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 130–141, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2, 1963. a
Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z., and Karniadakis, G. E.: Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators, Nat. Mach. Intell., 3, 218–229, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00302-5, 2021. a
Lund, R. and Li, B.: Revisiting climate region definitions via clustering, J. Climate, 22, 1787–1800, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2455.1, 2009. a
Makridakis, S.: The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms, Futures, 90, 46–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006, 2017. a
Maybee, B., Marsham, J. H., Klein, C. M., Parker, D. J., Barton, E. J., Taylor, C. M., Lewis, H., Sanchez, C., Jones, R. W., and Warner, J.: Wind Shear Effects in Convection–Permitting Models Influence MCS Rainfall and Forcing of Tropical Circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2024GL110119, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110119, 2024. a
McGovern, A., Elmore, K. L., Gagne, II, D. J., Haupt, S. E., Karstens, C. D., Lagerquist, R., Smith, T., and Williams, J. K.: Using artificial intelligence to improve real-time decision-making for high-impact weather, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 2073–2090, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0123.1, 2017. a
Mckay, D. I. A., Staal, A., Abrams, J. F., Winkelmann, R., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., Fetzer, I., Cornell, S. E., Rockstrom, J., and Lenton, T. M.: Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points, Science, 377, 1171, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn7950, 2022. a
Mercado, L. M., Huntingford, C., Gash, J. H. C., Cox, P. M., and Jogireddy, V.: Improving the representation of radiation interception and photosynthesis for climate model applications, Tellus B, 59, 553–565, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00256.x, 2007. a
Monteith, J. L.: Evaporation and surface-temperature, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 107, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1256/smsqj.45101, 1981. a
Mu, Q., Jackson, C. S., and Stoffa, P. L.: A multivariate empirical-orthogonal-function-based measure of climate model performance, J. Geophys. Res-Atmos., 109, D15101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004584, 2004. a, b
Mulholland, J. P., Peters, J. M., and Morrison, H.: How does vertical wind shear influence entrainment in squall lines?, J. Atmos. Sci., 78, 1931–1946, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0299.1, 2021. a
Murphy, K. P.: Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., USA, https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2014.914768, 2013. a, b, c
O'Gorman, P. A. and Dwyer, J. G.: Using Machine Learning to Parameterize Moist Convection: Potential for Modeling of Climate, Climate Change, and Extreme Events, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2548–2563, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001351, 2018. a
Papale, D.: Ideas and perspectives: enhancing the impact of the FLUXNET network of eddy covariance sites, Biogeosciences, 17, 5587–5598, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5587-2020, 2020. a
Petersen, B. K., Landajuela, M., Mundhenk, T. N., Santiago, C. P., Kim, S. K., and Kim, J. T.: Deep symbolic regression: Recovering mathematical expressions from data via risk-seeking policy gradients, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.04871, 2019. a
Picaut, J., Masia, F., and du Penhoat, Y.: An advective-reflective conceptual model for the oscillatory nature of the ENSO, Science, 277, 663–666, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5326.663, 1997. a
Prein, A. F., Gobiet, A., Suklitsch, M., Truhetz, H., Awan, N. K., Keuler, K., and Georgievski, G.: Added value of convection permitting seasonal simulations, Clim. Dynam., 41, 2655–2677, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1744-6, 2013. a
Prein, A. F., Liu, C., Ikeda, K., Trier, S. B., Rasmussen, R. M., Holland, G. J., and Clark, M. P.: Increased rainfall volume from future convective storms in the US, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 880–884, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0007-7, 2017. a
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., and Karniadakis, G. E.: Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys., 378, 686–707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045, 2019. a
Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M., Arakawa, A., and Grabowski, W.: Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84, 1547–1564, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-11-1547, 2003. a
Rasp, S., Pritchard, M. S., and Gentine, P.: Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 115, 9684–9689, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810286115, 2018. a
Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., Carvalhais, N., and Prabhat: Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science, Nature, 566, 195–204, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1, 2019. a, b
Rolnick, D., Donti, P. L., Kaack, L. H., Kochanski, K., Lacoste, A., Sankaran, K., Ross, A. S., Milojevic-Dupont, N., Jaques, N., Waldman-Brown, A., Luccioni, A. S., Maharaj, T., Sherwin, E. D., Mukkavilli, S. K., Kording, K. P., Gomes, C. P., Ng, A. Y., Hassabis, D., Platt, J. C., Creutzig, F., Chayes, J., and Bengio, Y.: Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning, ACM Comput. Surv., 55, 1–96, https://doi.org/10.1145/3485128, 2023. a
Ross, A., Li, Z., Perezhogin, P., Fernandez-Granda, C., and Zanna, L.: Benchmarking of Machine Learning Ocean Subgrid Parameterizations in an Idealized Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003258, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003258, 2023. a
Rudy, S. H., Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L., and Kutz, J. N.: Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations, Sci. Advances, 3, e1602614, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602614, 2017. a, b
San, O. and Iliescu, T.: A stabilized proper orthogonal decomposition reduced-order model for large scale quasigeostrophic ocean circulation, Adv. Comput. Math., 41, 1289–1319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-015-9417-0, 2015. a
Scher, S. and Messori, G.: Generalization properties of feed-forward neural networks trained on Lorenz systems, Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 26, 381–399, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-26-381-2019, 2019. a
Schmid, H. P.: Source areas for scalars and scalar fluxes, Bound-Lay. Meteorol., 67, 293–318, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713146, 1994. a
Schneider, T., Lan, S., Stuart, A., and Teixeira, J.: Earth System Modeling 2.0: A Blueprint for Models That Learn From Observations and Targeted High-Resolution Simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12396–12417, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076101, 2017. a
Schneider, T., Behera, S., Boccaletti, G., Deser, C., Emanuel, K., Ferrari, R., Leung, L. R., Lin, N., Mueller, T., Navarra, A., Ndiaye, O., Stuart, A., Tribbia, J., and Yamagata, T.: Harnessing AI and computing to advance climate modelling and prediction, Nat. Clim. Change, 13, 887–889, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01769-3, 2023. a
Schultz, M. G., Betancourt, C., Gong, B., Kleinert, F., Langguth, M., Leufen, L. H., Mozaffari, A., and Stadtler, S.: Can deep learning beat numerical weather prediction?, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, 20200097, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0097, 2021. a
Senior, C. A., Marsham, J. H., Berthou, S., Burgin, L. E., Folwell, S. S., Kendon, E. J., Klein, C. M., Jones, R. G., Mittal, N., Rowell, D. P., Tomassini, L., Vischel, T., Becker, B., Birch, C. E., Crook, J., Dougill, A. J., Finney, D. L., Graham, R. J., Hart, N. C. G., Jack, C. D., Jackson, L. S., James, R., Koelle, B., Misiani, H., Mwalukanga, B., Parker, D. J., Stratton, R. A., Taylor, C. M., Tucker, S. O., Wainwright, C. M., Washington, R., and Willet, M. R.: Convection-Permitting Regional Climate Change Simulations for Understanding Future Climate and Informing Decision-Making in Africa, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E1206–E1223, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0020.1, 2021. a
Shepherd, T. G.: Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 475, 20190013, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2019.0013, 2019. a
Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M., Piao, S. L., Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Prentice, I. C., and Woodward, F. I.: Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), Glob. Change Biol., 14, 2015–2039, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.x, 2008. a
Slingo, J., Bates, P., Bauer, P., Belcher, S., Palmer, T., Stephens, G., Stevens, B., Stocker, T., and Teutsch, G.: Ambitious partnership needed for reliable climate prediction, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 499–503, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01384-8, 2022. a
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, https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.0007, 2009. a
Smith, T. M., Reynolds, R. W., Livezey, R. E., and Stokes, D. C.: Reconstruction of historical sea surface temperatures using empirical orthogonal functions, J. Climate, 9, 1403–1420, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<1403:ROHSST>2.0.CO;2, 1996. a, b
Steinbach, M., Tan, P.-N., Kumar, V., Klooster, S., and Potter, C.: Discovery of climate indices using clustering, in: Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM Digital Library, 446–455, https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956801, 2003. a
Stephens, G. L., L'Ecuyer, T., Forbes, R., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Suzuki, K., Gabriel, P., and Haynes, J.: Dreary state of precipitation in global models, J. Geophys. Res,-Atmos., 115, D24211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014532, 2010. a
Stevens, B., Satoh, M., Auger, L., Biercamp, J., Bretherton, C. S., Chen, X., Düben, P., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Klocke, D., Kodama, C., Kornblueh, L., Lin, S. J., Neumann, P., Putman, W. M., Röber, N., Shibuya, R., Vanniere, B., Vidale, P. L., Wedi, N., and Zhou, L.: DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains, Prog. Earth Planet. Sci., 6, 61, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-019-0304-z, 2019. a
Stommel, H.: Thermohaline Convection with Two Stable Regimes of Flow, Tellus, 13, 224–230, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1961.tb00079.x, 1961. a
Storch, H. v. and Zwiers, F. W.: Statistical Analysis in Climate Research, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612336, 1999. a, b, c
Suarez, M. J. and Schopf, P. S.: A delayed action oscillator for ENSO, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 3283–3287, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<3283:ADAOFE>2.0.CO;2, 1998. a
Tanevski, J., Todorovski, L., and Džeroski, S.: Combinatorial search for selecting the structure of models of dynamical systems with equation discovery, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel., 89, 103423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103423, 2020. a
Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., and Ziehn, T.: Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021. a, b
Timmermann, A., Voss, H. U., and Pasmanter, R.: Empirical Dynamical System Modeling of ENSO Using Nonlinear Inverse Techniques, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 31, 1579–1598, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2001)031<1579:EDSMOE>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Timmermann, A., An, S.-I., Kug, J.-S., Jin, F.-F., Cai, W., Capotondi, A., Cobb, K., Lengaigne, M., McPhaden, M., Stuecker, M., Stein, K., Wittenberg, A., Yun, K.-S., Bayr, T., Chen, H.-C., Chikamoto, Y., Dewitte, B., Dommenget, D., Grothe, P., and Zhang, X.: El Niño–Southern Oscillation complexity, Nature, 559, 535–545, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0252-6, 2018. a
Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Ráduly, B., Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G., Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert, S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.: Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016, 2016. a
UNFCCC: Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (last access: 1 December 2024), 2015. a
Vlachas, P. R., Byeon, W., Wan, Z. Y., Sapsis, T. P., and Koumoutsakos, P.: Data-driven forecasting of high-dimensional chaotic systems with long short-term memory networks, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 474, 20170844, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2017.0844, 2018. a
Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., Anandkumar, A., Bergen, K., Gomes, C. P., Ho, S., Kohli, P., Lasenby, J., Leskovec, J., Liu, T.-Y., Manrai, A., Marks, D., Ramsundar, B., Song, L., Sun, J., Tang, J., Velickovic, P., Welling, M., Zhang, L., Coley, C. W., Bengio, Y., and Zitnik, M.: Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence, Nature, 620, 47–60, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2, 2023. a
Weisberg, R. H. and Wang, C.: A western Pacific oscillator paradigm for the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 779–782, https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL00689, 1997. a
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., and Roberts, N. M.: Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall, Rev. Geophys., 52, 522–555, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000464, 2014. a
Williamson, M. S., Thackeray, C. W., Cox, P. M., Hall, A., Huntingford, C., and Nijsse, F. J. M. M.: Emergent constraints on climate sensitivities, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 025004, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025004, 2021. a
Wong, C.: How AI is improving climate forecasts, Nature, 628, 710–712, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00780-8, 2024. a
Wunderling, N., Donges, J. F., Kurths, J., and Winkelmann, R.: Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 601–619, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-601-2021, 2021. a
Xiaoli Liu, Coulibaly, P., and Evora, N.: Comparison of data-driven methods for downscaling ensemble weather forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 615–624, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-615-2008, 2008. a
Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., Liu, X., Wu, Y., Dong, F., Qiu, C.-W., Qiu, J., Hua, K., Su, W., Wu, J., Xu, H., Han, Y., Fu, C., Yin, Z., Liu, M., Roepman, R., Dietmann, S., Virta, M., Kengara, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, L., Zhao, T., Dai, J., Yang, J., Lan, L., Luo, M., Liu, Z., An, T., Zhang, B., He, X., Cong, S., Liu, X., Zhang, W., Lewis, J. P., Tiedje, J. M., Wang, Q., An, Z., Wang, F., Zhang, L., Huang, T., Lu, C., Cai, Z., Wang, F., and Zhang, J.: Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research, Innovation, 2, 100179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100179, 2021. a
Yazdandoost, F., Moradian, S., Izadi, A., and Aghakouchak, A.: Evaluation of CMIP6 precipitation simulations across different climatic zones: Uncertainty and model intercomparison, Atmos. Res., 250, 105369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105369, 2021. a
Zebiak, S. E. and Cane, M. A.: A Model El Niño–Southern Oscillation, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 2262–2278, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115<2262:AMENO>2.0.CO;2, 1987. a
Chief editor
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often criticised for being a "black-box" approach that provides no physical insights into the data being analysed. Very recently, a new branch of AI has emerged, called “AI-led equation discovery”. As the name suggests, it aims to reveal process equations underlying the data. This Perspective Article offers a path to align AI methods with climate research, with a focus on the use of AI-led equation discovery in support of Earth System Models.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often criticised for being a "black-box" approach that provides...
Short summary
AI is impacting science, providing key data insights, but most algorithms are statistical requiring cautious "out-of-sample" extrapolation. Yet climate research concerns predicting future climatic states. We consider a new method of AI-led equation discovery. Equations offer process interpretation and more robust predictions. We recommend this method for climate analysis, suggesting illustrative application to atmospheric convection, land–atmosphere CO2 flux, and global ocean circulation models.
AI is impacting science, providing key data insights, but most algorithms are statistical...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint