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
No articles found.
Lukas Lindenlaub, Katja Weigel, Birgit Hassler, Colin Jones, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 81–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-81-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-81-2026, 2026
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.
Laura A. Mansfield, Peer J. Nowack, Edmund M. Ryan, Oliver Wild, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6046, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6046, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a fast machine learning emulator that predicts how Earth’s surface temperature reacts within the first five years to changes in greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants. It is trained on carefully designed simulations from a complex climate model, but can be run much faster. Our emulator can be used to show where the climate is most sensitive to different emissions and can help explore many possible future paths, making it easier to assess the climate effects of policy choices.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, Sandro Vattioni, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 17819–17844, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17819-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-17819-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then examined the relations between ozone response and changes in temperature and circulation to identify the drivers of ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated through offline calculations and by comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone–climate interactions are important for Earth system models and thus should be considered in future model development.
Paulo Ceppi, Sarah Wilson Kemsley, Hendrik Andersen, Timothy Andrews, Ryan J. Kramer, Peer Nowack, Casey J. Wall, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5206, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5206, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Recent decades have seen a marked decrease in global low-level cloud cover, leading to more sunlight heating the Earth. This trend is poorly understood, raising the concern that clouds may amplify global warming more than previously thought. We show that the cloud decrease is mostly caused by human forcing on climate, and that it agrees with previous estimates of how clouds respond to decreasing aerosol pollution, increasing greenhouse gas concentration, and their effects on global temperature.
Katharina Hafner, Sara Shamekh, Guillaume Bertoli, Axel Lauer, Robert Pincus, Julien Savre, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.05963, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Most climate models cannot resolve clouds and cloud-radiation interactions at coarse horizontal resolutions of about 100 km, which introduces uncertainties. High-resolution models resolve clouds better but are expensive to run. We use short high-resolution simulations and artificial intelligence to learn the cloud-radiation interactions without making any assumptions about the small scales. We propose a new method that significantly reduces cloud related errors.
Diajeng W. Atmojo, Katja Weigel, Arthur Grundner, Marika M. Holland, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3556, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study improves the sea ice albedo parametrisation in the Finite-Element Sea Ice Model by discovering an equation using symbolic regression, an interpretable machine learning method. Leveraging satellite and reanalyses data, our discovered equation identifies high sensitivity to thin snow and the weighted temperature difference between sea ice surface and 2 m air as critical to determine sea ice albedo. Our findings contribute to improving Arctic climate projections and understanding.
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 11991–12005, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11991-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11991-2025, 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.
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
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7991–8028, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7991-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7991-2025, 2025
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 that increases in anthropogenic emissions are the primary driver of ozone increases both in the free troposphere and at the surface.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Beth Dingley, James A. Anstey, Marta Abalos, Carsten Abraham, Tommi Bergman, Lisa Bock, Sonya Fiddes, Birgit Hassler, Ryan J. Kramer, Fei Luo, Fiona M. O'Connor, Petr Šácha, Isla R. Simpson, Laura J. Wilcox, and Mark D. Zelinka
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3189, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript defines as a list of variables and scientific opportunities which are requested from the CMIP7 Assessment Fast Track to address open atmospheric science questions. The list reflects the output of a large public community engagement effort, coordinated across autumn 2025 through to summer 2025.
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
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.
Aytaç Paçal, Birgit Hassler, Katja Weigel, Miguel-Ángel Fernández-Torres, Gustau Camps-Valls, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2460, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are among the deadliest natural hazards, yet their causes and changes over time are not fully understood. We analyzed European heatwaves using a machine learning method that detects atmospheric patterns from these data. Our findings show that recent summer heatwaves differ from historical ones, indicating a shift in atmospheric dynamics consistent with climate change. This approach improves our understanding of the temporal evolution of heatwaves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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