Articles | Volume 16, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025
© 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-16-607-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
24 Apr 2025
Research article |
| 24 Apr 2025
| 24 Apr 2025
Constraining uncertainty in projected precipitation over land with causal discovery
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Lisa Bock
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Peer Nowack
Institute of Theoretical Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Jakob Runge
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Center for Scalable Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (ScaDS.AI) Dresden/Leipzig, Dresden, Germany
Department of Computer Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Veronika Eyring
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Related authors
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.
Veronika Eyring, Lisa Bock, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Omar Bellprat, Björn Brötz, Louis-Philippe Caron, Nuno Carvalhais, Irene Cionni, Nicola Cortesi, Bas Crezee, Edouard L. Davin, Paolo Davini, Kevin Debeire, Lee de Mora, Clara Deser, David Docquier, Paul Earnshaw, Carsten Ehbrecht, Bettina K. Gier, Nube Gonzalez-Reviriego, Paul Goodman, Stefan Hagemann, Steven Hardiman, Birgit Hassler, Alasdair Hunter, Christopher Kadow, Stephan Kindermann, Sujan Koirala, Nikolay Koldunov, Quentin Lejeune, Valerio Lembo, Tomas Lovato, Valerio Lucarini, François Massonnet, Benjamin Müller, Amarjiit Pandde, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Adam Phillips, Valeriu Predoi, Joellen Russell, Alistair Sellar, Federico Serva, Tobias Stacke, Ranjini Swaminathan, Verónica Torralba, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, Katja Weigel, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool designed to improve comprehensive and routine evaluation of earth system models (ESMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). It has undergone rapid development since the first release in 2016 and is now a well-tested tool that provides end-to-end provenance tracking to ensure reproducibility.
Lukas Lindenlaub, Katja Weigel, Birgit Hassler, Colin Jones, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1517, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores changes in drought characteristic based on projections by 18 different Earth system models. Their performance is evaluated by comparing historical simulations to observation based reanalysis. The analysis of a standardized drought index under different future scenarios revealed that the harvest area that is projected to experience extreme drought conditions towards the end of this century ranges from 10 % to 40 % depending on the emission scenario.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Peer Nowack and Duncan Watson-Parris
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2365–2384, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In our article, we review uncertainties in global climate change projections and current methods using Earth observations as constraints, which is crucial for climate risk assessments and for informing society. We then discuss how machine learning can advance the field, discussing recent work that provides potentially stronger and more robust links between observed data and future climate projections. We further discuss the challenges of applying machine learning to climate science.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, and Sandro Vattioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then looked at the relations between ozone response and temperature and circulation changes to identify drivers of the ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated by doing offline calculations and comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone-climate interactions are important for Earth System Models, thus should be considered in future model development.
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Peer Nowack
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-221, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-221, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We explore how Pacific low-level clouds influence projections of regional climate change by adjusting a climate model to enhance low cloud response to surface temperatures. We find significant changes in projected warming patterns and circulation changes, under increased CO2 conditions. Our findings are supported by similar relationships across state-of-the-art climate models. These results highlight the importance of accurately representing clouds for predicting regional climate change impacts.
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.
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Xiao Lu, Yiming Liu, Jiayin Su, Xiang Weng, Tabish Ansari, Yuqiang Zhang, Guowen He, Yuqi Zhu, Haolin Wang, Ganquan Zeng, Jingyu Li, Cheng He, Shuai Li, Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen, Tim Butler, Qi Fan, Shaojia Fan, Grant L. Forster, Meng Gao, Jianlin Hu, Yugo Kanaya, Mohd Talib Latif, Keding Lu, Philippe Nédélec, Peer Nowack, Bastien Sauvage, Xiaobin Xu, Lin Zhang, Ke Li, Ja-Ho Koo, and Tatsuya Nagashima
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3702, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3702, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes summertime ozone trends in East and Southeast Asia derived from a comprehensive observational database spanning from 1995 to 2019, incorporating aircraft observations, ozonesonde data, and measurements from 2500 surface sites. Multiple models are applied to attribute to changes in anthropogenic emissions and climate. The results highlight increases in anthropogenic emission are the primary driver of ozone increases both in the free troposphere and at the surface.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
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.
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco A. Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2508, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Tuning a climate model means adjusting uncertain parameters in the model to best match observations like the global radiation balance and cloud cover. This is usually done by running many simulations of the model with different settings, which can be time-consuming and relies heavily on expert knowledge. To make this process faster and more objective, we developed a machine learning emulator to create a large ensemble and apply a method called history matching to find the best settings.
Sarah Wilson Kemsley, Paulo Ceppi, Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Philip Stier, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8295–8316, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Aiming to inform parameter selection for future observational constraint analyses, we incorporate five candidate meteorological drivers specifically targeting high clouds into a cloud controlling factor framework within a range of spatial domain sizes. We find a discrepancy between optimal domain size for predicting locally and globally aggregated cloud radiative anomalies and identify upper-tropospheric static stability as an important high-cloud controlling factor.
Arndt Kaps, Axel Lauer, Rémi Kazeroni, Martin Stengel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3001–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CCClim displays observations of clouds in terms of cloud classes that have been in use for a long time. CCClim is a machine-learning-powered product based on multiple existing observational products from different satellites. We show that the cloud classes in CCClim are physically meaningful and can be used to study cloud characteristics in more detail. The goal of this is to make real-world clouds more easily understandable to eventually improve the simulation of clouds in climate models.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Gerald A. Meehl, Jakob Runge, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 689–715, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores Atlantic–Pacific interactions and their response to external factors. Causal analysis of 1950–2014 data reveals a shift from a Pacific- to an Atlantic-driven regime. Contrasting impacts between El Niño and tropical Atlantic temperatures are highlighted, along with different pathways connecting the two oceans. The findings also suggest increasing remote contributions of forced Atlantic responses in modulating local Pacific responses during the most recent analyzed decades.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Lisa Bock and Axel Lauer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1587–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations still show a large range of effective climate sensitivity (ECS) with high uncertainties. An important contribution to ECS is cloud climate feedback. We investigate the representation of cloud physical and radiative properties from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project models grouped by ECS. We compare the simulated cloud properties of today’s climate from three ECS groups and quantify how the projected changes in cloud properties and cloud radiative effects differ.
Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Alyson Douglas, Timothy A. Myers, Peer Nowack, Philip Stier, Casey J. Wall, and Sarah Wilson Kemsley
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10775–10794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses an observation-based cloud-controlling factor framework to study near-global sensitivities of cloud radiative effects to a large number of meteorological and aerosol controls. We present near-global sensitivity patterns to selected thermodynamic, dynamic, and aerosol factors and discuss the physical mechanisms underlying the derived sensitivities. Our study hopes to guide future analyses aimed at constraining cloud feedbacks and aerosol–cloud interactions.
Soufiane Karmouche, Evgenia Galytska, Jakob Runge, Gerald A. Meehl, Adam S. Phillips, Katja Weigel, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 309–344, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-309-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a causal discovery method to evaluate the ability of climate models to represent the interactions between the Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) and the Pacific decadal variability (PDV). The approach and findings in this study present a powerful methodology that can be applied to a number of environment-related topics, offering tremendous insights to improve the understanding of the complex Earth system and the state of the art of climate modeling.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool was designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows for reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that have not been reformatted before.
Xiang Weng, Grant L. Forster, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8385–8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We use machine learning to quantify the meteorological drivers behind surface ozone variations in China between 2015 and 2019. Our novel approaches show improved performance when compared to previous analysis methods. We highlight that nonlinearity in driver relationships and the impacts of large-scale meteorological phenomena are key to understanding ozone pollution. Moreover, we find that almost half of the observed ozone trend between 2015 and 2019 might have been driven by meteorology.
Peer Nowack, Lev Konstantinovskiy, Hannah Gardiner, and John Cant
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5637–5655, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning (ML) calibration techniques could be an effective way to improve the performance of low-cost air pollution sensors. Here we provide novel insights from case studies within the urban area of London, UK, where we compared the performance of three ML techniques to calibrate low-cost measurements of NO2 and PM10. In particular, we highlight the key issue of the method-dependent robustness in maintaining calibration skill after transferring sensors to different measurement sites.
Carl Thomas, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Gerald Lim, Joanna Haigh, and Peer Nowack
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 581–608, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric blocking events are complex large-scale weather patterns which block the path of the jet stream. They are associated with heat waves in summer and cold snaps in winter. Blocking is poorly understood, and the effect of climate change is not clear. Here, we present a new method to study blocking using unsupervised machine learning. We show that this method performs better than previous methods used. These results show the potential for unsupervised learning in atmospheric science.
Alexander Kuhn-Régnier, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Peer Nowack, Matthias Forkel, I. Colin Prentice, and Sandy P. Harrison
Biogeosciences, 18, 3861–3879, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Along with current climate, vegetation, and human influences, long-term accumulation of biomass affects fires. Here, we find that including the influence of antecedent vegetation and moisture improves our ability to predict global burnt area. Additionally, the length of the preceding period which needs to be considered for accurate predictions varies across regions.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
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.
Manuel Schlund, Axel Lauer, Pierre Gentine, Steven C. Sherwood, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
As an important measure of climate change, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) describes the change in surface temperature after a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) show a wide range in ECS. Emergent constraints are a technique to reduce uncertainties in ECS with observational data. Emergent constraints developed with data from CMIP phase 5 show reduced skill and higher ECS ranges when applied to CMIP6 data.
Abdul Malik, Peer J. Nowack, Joanna D. Haigh, Long Cao, Luqman Atique, and Yves Plancherel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15461–15485, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been introduced to mitigate human-caused global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space. This research investigates the impact of solar geoengineering on the tropical Pacific climate. We find that solar geoengineering can compensate some of the greenhouse-induced changes in the tropical Pacific but not all. In particular, solar geoengineering will result in significant changes in rainfall, sea surface temperatures, and increased frequency of extreme ENSO events.
Bettina K. Gier, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Models from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 5 and 6 are compared to a satellite data product of column-averaged CO2 mole fractions (XCO2). The previously believed discrepancy of the negative trend in seasonal cycle amplitude in the satellite product, which is not seen in in situ data nor in the models, is attributed to a sampling characteristic. Furthermore, CMIP6 models are shown to have made progress in reproducing the observed XCO2 time series compared to CMIP5.
Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, Omar Bellprat, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Alasdair Hunter, Ruth Lorenz, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Daniel Senftleben, Katja Weigel, and Sabrina Zechlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is a community software tool designed for evaluation and analysis of climate models. New features of version 2.0 include analysis scripts for important large-scale features in climate models, diagnostics for extreme events, regional model and impact evaluation. In this paper, newly implemented climate metrics, emergent constraints for climate-relevant feedbacks and diagnostics for future model projections are described and illustrated with examples.
Veronika Eyring, Lisa Bock, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Omar Bellprat, Björn Brötz, Louis-Philippe Caron, Nuno Carvalhais, Irene Cionni, Nicola Cortesi, Bas Crezee, Edouard L. Davin, Paolo Davini, Kevin Debeire, Lee de Mora, Clara Deser, David Docquier, Paul Earnshaw, Carsten Ehbrecht, Bettina K. Gier, Nube Gonzalez-Reviriego, Paul Goodman, Stefan Hagemann, Steven Hardiman, Birgit Hassler, Alasdair Hunter, Christopher Kadow, Stephan Kindermann, Sujan Koirala, Nikolay Koldunov, Quentin Lejeune, Valerio Lembo, Tomas Lovato, Valerio Lucarini, François Massonnet, Benjamin Müller, Amarjiit Pandde, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Adam Phillips, Valeriu Predoi, Joellen Russell, Alistair Sellar, Federico Serva, Tobias Stacke, Ranjini Swaminathan, Verónica Torralba, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, Katja Weigel, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool designed to improve comprehensive and routine evaluation of earth system models (ESMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). It has undergone rapid development since the first release in 2016 and is now a well-tested tool that provides end-to-end provenance tracking to ensure reproducibility.
Duane Waliser, Peter J. Gleckler, Robert Ferraro, Karl E. Taylor, Sasha Ames, James Biard, Michael G. Bosilovich, Otis Brown, Helene Chepfer, Luca Cinquini, Paul J. Durack, Veronika Eyring, Pierre-Philippe Mathieu, Tsengdar Lee, Simon Pinnock, Gerald L. Potter, Michel Rixen, Roger Saunders, Jörg Schulz, Jean-Noël Thépaut, and Matthias Tuma
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an update to an international research activity whose objective is to facilitate access to satellite and other types of regional and global datasets for evaluating global models used to produce 21st century climate projections.
Mattia Righi, Bouwe Andela, Veronika Eyring, Axel Lauer, Valeriu Predoi, Manuel Schlund, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Lisa Bock, Björn Brötz, Lee de Mora, Faruk Diblen, Laura Dreyer, Niels Drost, Paul Earnshaw, Birgit Hassler, Nikolay Koldunov, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the second major release of ESMValTool, a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models. This new version features a brand new design, with an improved interface and a revised preprocessor. It takes advantage of state-of-the-art computational libraries and methods to deploy efficient and user-friendly data processing, improving the performance over its predecessor by more than a factor of 30.
Christoph Heinze, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Colin Jones, Yves Balkanski, William Collins, Thierry Fichefet, Shuang Gao, Alex Hall, Detelina Ivanova, Wolfgang Knorr, Reto Knutti, Alexander Löw, Michael Ponater, Martin G. Schultz, Michael Schulz, Pier Siebesma, Joao Teixeira, George Tselioudis, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 379–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-379-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-379-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models for producing climate projections under given forcings include additional processes and feedbacks that traditional physical climate models do not consider. We present an overview of climate feedbacks for key Earth system components and discuss the evaluation of these feedbacks. The target group for this article includes generalists with a background in natural sciences and an interest in climate change as well as experts working in interdisciplinary climate research.
Lisa Bock and Ulrike Burkhardt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8163–8174, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The climate impact of air traffic is to a large degree caused by changes in cirrus cloudiness resulting from the formation of contrails. We use an atmospheric climate model with a contrail cirrus parameterization to investigate the climate impact of contrail cirrus for the year 2050. The strong increase in contrail cirrus radiative forcing due to the projected increase in air traffic volume cannot be compensated for by the reduction of soot emissions and by improvements in propulsion efficiency.
Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Hans Schlager, Robert Baumann, Duy Sinh Cai, Veronika Eyring, Phoebe Graf, Volker Grewe, Patrick Jöckel, Tina Jurkat-Witschas, Christiane Voigt, Andreas Zahn, and Helmut Ziereis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5655–5675, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5655-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5655-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This study places aircraft trace gas measurements from within the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone into the context of regional, intra- and interannual variability. We find that the processes reflected in the measurements are present throughout multiple simulated monsoon seasons. Dynamical instabilities, photochemical ozone production, lightning and entrainments from the lower troposphere and from the tropopause region determine the distinct composition of the anticyclone and its outflow.
Axel Lauer, Colin Jones, Veronika Eyring, Martin Evaldsson, Stefan Hagemann, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Romain Roehrig, and Shiyu Wang
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 33–67, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-33-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-33-2018, 2018
Lili Xia, Peer J. Nowack, Simone Tilmes, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11913–11928, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone is a key air pollutant. We model two geoengineering schemes, stratospheric sulfur injection and solar irradiance reduction, to compare their impacts on atmospheric ozone concentrations. With the nearly identical global mean surface temperature reduction, solar dimming increases global average surface ozone concentration, while sulfate injection decreases it. This difference is due to different stratosphere–troposphere exchange of ozone and tropospheric ozone chemistry in the two scenarios.
Marianne T. Lund, Borgar Aamaas, Terje Berntsen, Lisa Bock, Ulrike Burkhardt, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, and Keith P. Shine
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 547–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-547-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-547-2017, 2017
Klaus-D. Gottschaldt, Hans Schlager, Robert Baumann, Heiko Bozem, Veronika Eyring, Peter Hoor, Patrick Jöckel, Tina Jurkat, Christiane Voigt, Andreas Zahn, and Helmut Ziereis
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6091–6111, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6091-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6091-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present upper-tropospheric trace gas measurements in the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone, obtained with the HALO research aircraft in September 2012. The anticyclone is one of the largest atmospheric features on Earth, but many aspects of it are not well understood. With the help of model simulations we find that entrainments from the tropopause region and the lower troposphere, combined with photochemistry and dynamical instabilities, can explain the observations.
William J. Collins, Jean-François Lamarque, Michael Schulz, Olivier Boucher, Veronika Eyring, Michaela I. Hegglin, Amanda Maycock, Gunnar Myhre, Michael Prather, Drew Shindell, and Steven J. Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 585–607, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-585-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-585-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We have designed a set of climate model experiments called the Aerosol Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP). These are designed to quantify the climate and air quality impacts of aerosols and chemically reactive gases in the climate models that are used to simulate past and future climate. We hope that many climate modelling centres will choose to run these experiments to help understand the contribution of aerosols and chemistry to climate change.
Veronika Eyring, Peter J. Gleckler, Christoph Heinze, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, V. Balaji, Eric Guilyardi, Sylvie Joussaume, Stephan Kindermann, Bryan N. Lawrence, Gerald A. Meehl, Mattia Righi, and Dean N. Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 813–830, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We argue that the CMIP community has reached a critical juncture at which many baseline aspects of model evaluation need to be performed much more efficiently to enable a systematic and rapid performance assessment of the large number of models participating in CMIP, and we announce our intention to implement such a system for CMIP6. At the same time, continuous scientific research is required to develop innovative metrics and diagnostics that help narrowing the spread in climate projections.
Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, George Hurtt, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Jason Lowe, Gerald A. Meehl, Richard Moss, Keywan Riahi, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. The design consists of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions. Climate model projections will facilitate integrated studies of climate change as well as address targeted scientific questions.
Raquel A. Silva, J. Jason West, Jean-François Lamarque, Drew T. Shindell, William J. Collins, Stig Dalsoren, Greg Faluvegi, Gerd Folberth, Larry W. Horowitz, Tatsuya Nagashima, Vaishali Naik, Steven T. Rumbold, Kengo Sudo, Toshihiko Takemura, Daniel Bergmann, Philip Cameron-Smith, Irene Cionni, Ruth M. Doherty, Veronika Eyring, Beatrice Josse, Ian A. MacKenzie, David Plummer, Mattia Righi, David S. Stevenson, Sarah Strode, Sophie Szopa, and Guang Zengast
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 9847–9862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9847-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9847-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Using ozone and PM2.5 concentrations from the ACCMIP ensemble of chemistry-climate models for the four Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (RCPs), together with projections of future population and baseline mortality rates, we quantify the human premature mortality impacts of future ambient air pollution in 2030, 2050 and 2100, relative to 2000 concentrations. We also estimate the global mortality burden of ozone and PM2.5 in 2000 and each future period.
Veronika Eyring, Sandrine Bony, Gerald A. Meehl, Catherine A. Senior, Bjorn Stevens, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The objective of CMIP is to better understand past, present, and future climate change in a multi-model context. CMIP's increasing importance and scope is a tremendous success story, but the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. In response to these challenges, we have adopted a more federated structure for the sixth phase of CMIP (i.e. CMIP6) and subsequent phases.
Veronika Eyring, Mattia Righi, Axel Lauer, Martin Evaldsson, Sabrina Wenzel, Colin Jones, Alessandro Anav, Oliver Andrews, Irene Cionni, Edouard L. Davin, Clara Deser, Carsten Ehbrecht, Pierre Friedlingstein, Peter Gleckler, Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Stefan Hagemann, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, John Krasting, Dominik Kunert, Richard Levine, Alexander Loew, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Erik Mason, Adam S. Phillips, Simon Read, Catherine Rio, Romain Roehrig, Daniel Senftleben, Andreas Sterl, Lambertus H. van Ulft, Jeremy Walton, Shiyu Wang, and Keith D. Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) in CMIP has been developed that allows for routine comparison of single or multiple models, either against predecessor versions or against observations.
Peer Johannes Nowack, Nathan Luke Abraham, Peter Braesicke, and John Adrian Pyle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4191–4203, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4191-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4191-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Various forms of solar radiation management (SRM) have been proposed to counteract man-made climate change. However, all these countermeasures could have unintended side-effects. We add a novel perspective to this discussion by showing how atmospheric ozone changes under solar geoengineering could affect UV exposure and air pollution. This would have implications for human health and ecology. Atmospheric composition changes are therefore important to consider in the evaluation of any SRM scheme.
M. Righi, V. Eyring, K.-D. Gottschaldt, C. Klinger, F. Frank, P. Jöckel, and I. Cionni
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 733–768, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-733-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-733-2015, 2015
V. Naik, A. Voulgarakis, A. M. Fiore, L. W. Horowitz, J.-F. Lamarque, M. Lin, M. J. Prather, P. J. Young, D. Bergmann, P. J. Cameron-Smith, I. Cionni, W. J. Collins, S. B. Dalsøren, R. Doherty, V. Eyring, G. Faluvegi, G. A. Folberth, B. Josse, Y. H. Lee, I. A. MacKenzie, T. Nagashima, T. P. C. van Noije, D. A. Plummer, M. Righi, S. T. Rumbold, R. Skeie, D. T. Shindell, D. S. Stevenson, S. Strode, K. Sudo, S. Szopa, and G. Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 5277–5298, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013, 2013
D. S. Stevenson, P. J. Young, V. Naik, J.-F. Lamarque, D. T. Shindell, A. Voulgarakis, R. B. Skeie, S. B. Dalsoren, G. Myhre, T. K. Berntsen, G. A. Folberth, S. T. Rumbold, W. J. Collins, I. A. MacKenzie, R. M. Doherty, G. Zeng, T. P. C. van Noije, A. Strunk, D. Bergmann, P. Cameron-Smith, D. A. Plummer, S. A. Strode, L. Horowitz, Y. H. Lee, S. Szopa, K. Sudo, T. Nagashima, B. Josse, I. Cionni, M. Righi, V. Eyring, A. Conley, K. W. Bowman, O. Wild, and A. Archibald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3063–3085, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013, 2013
A. Voulgarakis, V. Naik, J.-F. Lamarque, D. T. Shindell, P. J. Young, M. J. Prather, O. Wild, R. D. Field, D. Bergmann, P. Cameron-Smith, I. Cionni, W. J. Collins, S. B. Dalsøren, R. M. Doherty, V. Eyring, G. Faluvegi, G. A. Folberth, L. W. Horowitz, B. Josse, I. A. MacKenzie, T. Nagashima, D. A. Plummer, M. Righi, S. T. Rumbold, D. S. Stevenson, S. A. Strode, K. Sudo, S. Szopa, and G. Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2563–2587, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2563-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2563-2013, 2013
P. J. Young, A. T. Archibald, K. W. Bowman, J.-F. Lamarque, V. Naik, D. S. Stevenson, S. Tilmes, A. Voulgarakis, O. Wild, D. Bergmann, P. Cameron-Smith, I. Cionni, W. J. Collins, S. B. Dalsøren, R. M. Doherty, V. Eyring, G. Faluvegi, L. W. Horowitz, B. Josse, Y. H. Lee, I. A. MacKenzie, T. Nagashima, D. A. Plummer, M. Righi, S. T. Rumbold, R. B. Skeie, D. T. Shindell, S. A. Strode, K. Sudo, S. Szopa, and G. Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2063–2090, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013, 2013
J.-F. Lamarque, D. T. Shindell, B. Josse, P. J. Young, I. Cionni, V. Eyring, D. Bergmann, P. Cameron-Smith, W. J. Collins, R. Doherty, S. Dalsoren, G. Faluvegi, G. Folberth, S. J. Ghan, L. W. Horowitz, Y. H. Lee, I. A. MacKenzie, T. Nagashima, V. Naik, D. Plummer, M. Righi, S. T. Rumbold, M. Schulz, R. B. Skeie, D. S. Stevenson, S. Strode, K. Sudo, S. Szopa, A. Voulgarakis, and G. Zeng
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 179–206, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013, 2013
Cited articles
Abramowitz, G. and Bishop, C. H.: Climate model dependence and the ensemble dependence transformation of CMIP projections, J. Climate, 28, 2332–2348, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00364.1, 2015. a
Allen, M. R. and Ingram, W. J.: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, 2002. a
Allan, R. P., Barlow, M., Byrne, M. P., Cherchi, A., Douville, H., Fowler, H. J., Gan, T. Y., Pendergrass, A. G., Rosenfeld, D., Swann, A. L. S., Wilcox, L. J., and Zolina, O.: Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change, Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1472, 49–75, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14337, 2020. a
Benestad, R. E., Hanssen-Bauer, I., and Førland, E. J.: An evaluation of statistical models for downscaling precipitation and their ability to capture long-term trends, Int. J. Climatol., 27, 649–665, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1421, 2007. a
Beydoun, H. and Hoose, C.: Aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in the context of convective self-aggregation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1066–1087, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001523, 2019. a
CMIP: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) data, Working Group on Coupled Modeling of the World Climate Research Programme, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://esgf-metagrid.cloud.dkrz.de/search, last access: 1 April 2024. a
Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2023. a
Costa-Cabral, M., Rath, J. S., Mills, W. B., Roy, S. B., Bromirski, P. D., and Milesi, C.: Projecting and forecasting winter precipitation extremes and meteorological drought in California using the North Pacific high sea level pressure anomaly, J. Climate, 29, 5009–5026, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0525.1, 2016. a
Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability, Nature, 553, 319–322, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25450, 2018. a
Debeire, K.: Constraining uncertainty in projected precipitation over land with causal discovery (v1.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14865765, 2025. a
Dai, P., Nie, J., Yu, Y., and Wu, R.: Constraints on regional projections of mean and extreme precipitation under warming, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 121, e2312400121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2312400121, 2024. a, b
Dia-Diop, A., Wade, M., Zebaze, S., Diop, A. B., Efon, E., Lenouo, A., and Diop, B.: Influence of sea level pressure on inter-annual rainfall variability in Northern Senegal in the context of climate change, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 12, 113–131, https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2022.121009, 2021. a
Doblas-Reyes, F., Sörensson, A., Almazroui, M., Dosio, A., Gutowski, W., Haarsma, R., Hamdi, R., Hewitson, B., Kwon, W.-T., Lamptey, B., Maraun, D., Stephenson, T., Takayabu, I., Terray, L., Turner, A., and Zuo, Z.: Linking global to regional climate change, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sect. 10, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1363–1512, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.012, 2021. a
Douville, H., Raghavan, K., Renwick, J., Allan, R., Arias, P., Barlow, M., Cerezo-Mota, R., Cherchi, A., Gan, T., Gergis, J., Jiang, D., Khan, A., Pokam Mba, W., Rosenfeld, D., Tierney, J., and Zolina, O.: Water cycle changes, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sect. 8, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1055–1210, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.010, 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, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G., Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M., Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P., Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G., Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D., Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.: Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019. a, b
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020. a
Eyring, V., Collins, W. D., Gentine, P., Barnes, E. A., Barreiro, M., Beucler, T., Bocquet, M., Bretherton, C. S., Christensen, H. M., 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 modeling and analysis with machine learning, Nat. Clim. Change, 14, 916–928, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02095-y, 2024a. a, b
Eyring, V., Gentine, P., Camps-Valls, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Reichstein, M.: AI-empowered next-generation multiscale climate modeling for mitigation and adaptation, Nat. Geosci., 17, 963–971, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01527-w, 2024b. a
Ferguglia, O., von Hardenberg, J., and Palazzi, E.: Robustness of precipitation emergent constraints in CMIP6 models, Clim. Dynam., 61, 1439–1450, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06634-1, 2023. a, b
Hall, A. and Qu, X.: Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03502, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025127, 2006. a
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1108, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-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., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
IPCC: Summary for policymakers, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001, 2021. a
Kaiser, H. F.: The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis, Psychometrika, 23, 187–200, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233, 1958. a, b
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., and Joseph, D.: The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437–472, 1996. a
Karpechko, A. Y., Maraun, D., and Eyring, V.: Improving antarctic total ozone projections by a process-oriented multiple diagnostic ensemble regression, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 3959–3976, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-071.1, 2013. a
Kotz, M., Levermann, A., and Wenz, L.: The effect of rainfall changes on economic production, Nature, 601, 223–227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04283-8, 2022. a
Kuma, P., Bender, F. A.-M., and Jönsson, A. R.: Climate model code genealogy and its relation to climate feedbacks and sensitivity, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003588, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003588, 2023. a
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Bellprat, O., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Hunter, A., Lorenz, R., Pérez-Zanón, N., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Senftleben, D., Weigel, K., and Zechlau, S.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for emergent constraints and future projections from Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4205–4228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4205-2020, 2020. a
Lavers, D., Prudhomme, C., and Hannah, D. M.: European precipitation connections with large-scale Mean Sea-Level Pressure (MSLP) fields, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 58, 310–327, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.754545, 2013. a
Lee, J.-Y., Marotzke, J., Bala, G., Cao, L., Corti, S., Dunne, J., Engelbrecht, F., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Jones, C., Maycock, A., Mutemi, J., Ndiaye, O., Panickal, S., and Zhou, T.: Future global climate: scenario-based projections and near-term information, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sect. 4, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 553–672, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.006, 2021. a
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P., and Monahan, A. H.: Climate model projections of 21st century global warming constrained using the observed warming trend, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086757, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086757, 2020. a
Merrifield, A. L., Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Medhaug, I., and Knutti, R.: An investigation of weighting schemes suitable for incorporating large ensembles into multi-model ensembles, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 807–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-807-2020, 2020. a
Müller-Plath, G., Lüdecke, H.-J., and Lüning, S.: Long-distance air pressure differences correlate with European rain, Sci. Rep., 12, 10191, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14028-w, 2022. a
Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020. a
NOAA/NCEP: NCEP-NCAR reanalysis 1, NOAA/NCEP [data set], https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html, last access: 1 April 2024. a
Nowack, Nowack, P. and Watson-Parris, D.: Opinion: Why all emergent constraints are wrong but some are useful – a machine learning perspective, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2365–2384, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025, 2025. a
O'Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., Mathur, R., and van Vuuren, D. P.: A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways, Climatic Change, 122, 387–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2, 2014. a, b
Pendergrass, A. G.: The global-mean precipitation response to CO2-induced warming in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089964, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089964, 2020. a
Qu, X., Hall, A., DeAngelis, A. M., Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Su, H., Tian, B., and Zhai, C.: On the emergent constraints of climate sensitivity, J. Climate, 31, 863–875, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0482.1, 2018. a
Ramsay, J. O. and Silverman, B. W.: Principal components analysis for functional data, in: Functional Data Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, New York, NY, 147–172, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-22751-2_8, 2005. a, b
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020. a
Rohe, K. and Zeng, M.: Vintage factor analysis with varimax performs statistical inference, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met., 85, 1037–1060, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssb/qkad029, 2023. a, b
Runge, J., Bathiany, S., Bollt, E., Camps-Valls, G., Coumou, D., Deyle, E., Glymour, C., Kretschmer, M., Mahecha, M. D., Muñoz-Marí, J., van Nes, E. H., Peters, J., Quax, R., Reichstein, M., Scheffer, M., Schölkopf, B., Spirtes, P., Sugihara, G., Sun, J., Zhang, K., and Zscheischler, J.: Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences, Nat. Commun., 10, 2553, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3, 2019a. a
Runge, J., Nowack, P., Kretschmer, M., Flaxman, S., and Sejdinovic, D.: Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets, Science Advances, 5, eaau4996, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4996, 2019b. a, b, c
Runge, J., Gerhardus, A., Varando, G., Eyring, V., and Camps-Valls, G.: Causal inference for time series, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 4, 487–505, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00431-y, 2023a. a, b, c
Runge, J., Gillies, E., Strobl, E. V., and Palachy-Affek, S.: jakobrunge/tigramite: Tigramite 5.2, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7747255, 2023b. 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
Schlund, M., Eyring, V., Camps-Valls, G., Friedlingstein, P., Gentine, P., and Reichstein, M.: Constraining uncertainty in projected gross primary production with machine learning, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 125, e2019JG005619, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005619, 2020a. a, b, c
Schlund, M., Lauer, A., Gentine, P., Sherwood, S. C., and Eyring, V.: Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6?, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020b. a, b
Schlund, M., Hassler, B., Lauer, A., Andela, B., Jöckel, P., Kazeroni, R., Loosveldt Tomas, S., Medeiros, B., Predoi, V., Sénési, S., Servonnat, J., Stacke, T., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., and Eyring, V.: Evaluation of native Earth system model output with ESMValTool v2.6.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 315–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-315-2023, 2023. a
Seneviratne, S., Zhang, X., Adnan, M., Badi, W., Dereczynski, C., Di Luca, A., Ghosh, S., Iskandar, I., Kossin, J., Lewis, S., Otto, F., Pinto, I., Satoh, M., Vicente-Serrano, S., Wehner, M., and Zhou, B.: Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sect. 11, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1513–1765, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.013, 2021. a
Shaffer, R. E.: Multi- and Megavariate Data Analysis. Principles and Applications, I. Eriksson, E. Johansson, N. Kettaneh-Wold and S. Wold, Umetrics Academy, Umeå, 2001, ISBN 91-973730-1-X, 533 pp., J. Chemometr., 16, 261–262, https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.713, 2002. a, b
Shiogama, H., Watanabe, M., Kim, H., and Hirota, N.: Emergent constraints on future precipitation changes, Nature, 602, 612–616, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04310-8, 2022. a, b
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
Thackeray, C. W., Hall, A., Norris, J., and Chen, D.: Constraining the increased frequency of global precipitation extremes under warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 441–448, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01329-1, 2022. a
Thompson, R. and Green, D. N.: Mediterranean precipitation and its relationship with sea level pressure patterns, Ann. Geophys.-Italy, 47, 5, https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3364, 2004. a
Tokarska, K. B., Hegerl, G. C., Schurer, A. P., Forster, P. M., and Marvel, K.: Observational constraints on the effective climate sensitivity from the historical period, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 034043, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab738f, 2020. a
Trenberth, K. E. and Zhang, Y.: How often does it really rain?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 289–298, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0107.1, 2018. a
Vejmelka, M., Pokorná, L., Hlinka, J., Hartman, D., Jajcay, N., and Paluš, M.: Non-random correlation structures and dimensionality reduction in multivariate climate data, Clim. Dynam., 44, 2663–2682, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2244-z, 2015. a
Wenzel, S., Eyring, V., Gerber, E. P., and Karpechko, A. Y.: Constraining future summer austral jet stream positions in the CMIP5 ensemble by process-oriented multiple diagnostic regression, J. Climate, 29, 673–687, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0412.1, 2016. a
Zhang, W., Zhou, T., and Wu, P.: Anthropogenic amplification of precipitation variability over the past century, Science, 385, 427–432, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp0212, 2024. a
Short summary
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current climate models still have large uncertainties, especially over land. This study presents a new method to improve precipitation projections by identifying which models best capture key climate patterns. By giving more weight to models that better represent these patterns, our approach leads to more reliable future precipitation projections over land.
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint