DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Rethinking the Default Construction of Multimodel Climate Ensembles

Abstract

Here, we discuss the current code of practice in the climate sciences to routinely create climate model ensembles as ensembles of opportunity from the newest phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). We give a two-step argument to rethink this process. First, the differences between generations of ensembles corresponding to different CMIP phases in key climate quantities are not large enough to warrant an automatic separation into generational ensembles for CMIP3 and CMIP5. Second, we suggest that climate model ensembles cannot continue to be mere ensembles of opportunity but should always be based on a transparent scientific decision process. If ensembles can be constrained by observation, then they should be constructed as target ensembles that are specifically tailored to a physical question. If model ensembles cannot be constrained by observation, then they should be constructed as cross-generational ensembles, including all available model data to enhance structural model diversity and to better sample the underlying uncertainties. To facilitate this, CMIP should guide the necessarily ongoing process of updating experimental protocols for the evaluation and documentation of coupled models. Finally, with an emphasis on easy access to model data and facilitating the filtering of climate model data across all CMIP generationsmore » and experiments, our community could return to the underlying idea of using model data ensembles to improve uncertainty quantification, evaluation, and cross-institutional exchange.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1]
  1. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg (Germany)
  2. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER). Earth and Environmental Systems Science Division
OSTI Identifier:
1408078
Report Number(s):
LLNL-JRNL-662060
Journal ID: ISSN 0003-0007
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-07NA27344
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 96; Journal Issue: 6; Journal ID: ISSN 0003-0007
Publisher:
American Meteorological Society
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 58 GEOSCIENCES

Citation Formats

Rauser, Florian, Gleckler, Peter, and Marotzke, Jochem. Rethinking the Default Construction of Multimodel Climate Ensembles. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00181.1.
Rauser, Florian, Gleckler, Peter, & Marotzke, Jochem. Rethinking the Default Construction of Multimodel Climate Ensembles. United States. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00181.1
Rauser, Florian, Gleckler, Peter, and Marotzke, Jochem. Tue . "Rethinking the Default Construction of Multimodel Climate Ensembles". United States. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00181.1. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1408078.
@article{osti_1408078,
title = {Rethinking the Default Construction of Multimodel Climate Ensembles},
author = {Rauser, Florian and Gleckler, Peter and Marotzke, Jochem},
abstractNote = {Here, we discuss the current code of practice in the climate sciences to routinely create climate model ensembles as ensembles of opportunity from the newest phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). We give a two-step argument to rethink this process. First, the differences between generations of ensembles corresponding to different CMIP phases in key climate quantities are not large enough to warrant an automatic separation into generational ensembles for CMIP3 and CMIP5. Second, we suggest that climate model ensembles cannot continue to be mere ensembles of opportunity but should always be based on a transparent scientific decision process. If ensembles can be constrained by observation, then they should be constructed as target ensembles that are specifically tailored to a physical question. If model ensembles cannot be constrained by observation, then they should be constructed as cross-generational ensembles, including all available model data to enhance structural model diversity and to better sample the underlying uncertainties. To facilitate this, CMIP should guide the necessarily ongoing process of updating experimental protocols for the evaluation and documentation of coupled models. Finally, with an emphasis on easy access to model data and facilitating the filtering of climate model data across all CMIP generations and experiments, our community could return to the underlying idea of using model data ensembles to improve uncertainty quantification, evaluation, and cross-institutional exchange.},
doi = {10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00181.1},
journal = {Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society},
number = 6,
volume = 96,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Jul 21 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Tue Jul 21 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 9 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models: CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IN CMIP5 MODELS
journal, May 2012

  • Andrews, Timothy; Gregory, Jonathan M.; Webb, Mark J.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 39, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051607

Reliability of the CMIP3 ensemble: RELIABILITY OF CMIP3
journal, January 2010

  • Annan, J. D.; Hargreaves, J. C.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009GL041994

Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining
journal, March 2014

  • Caldwell, Peter M.; Bretherton, Christopher S.; Zelinka, Mark D.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014GL059205

The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system
journal, April 2011

  • Dee, D. P.; Uppala, S. M.; Simmons, A. J.
  • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 137, Issue 656
  • DOI: 10.1002/qj.828

A Less Cloudy Future: The Role of Subtropical Subsidence in Climate Sensitivity
journal, November 2012


Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change
journal, January 2006


Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis
book, March 2014


The end of model democracy?: An editorial comment
journal, January 2010


Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections
journal, October 2012


Challenges in Combining Projections from Multiple Climate Models
journal, May 2010

  • Knutti, Reto; Furrer, Reinhard; Tebaldi, Claudia
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 23, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1

Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there: CLIMATE MODEL GENEALOGY
journal, March 2013

  • Knutti, Reto; Masson, David; Gettelman, Andrew
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 40, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1002/grl.50256

Accuracy of climate change predictions using high resolution simulations as surrogates of truth: ACCURACY OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS
journal, March 2011

  • Matsueda, Mio; Palmer, T. N.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1029/2010GL046618

Climate Model Intercomparisons: Preparing for the Next Phase
journal, March 2014

  • Meehl, Gerald A.; Moss, Richard; Taylor, Karl E.
  • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 95, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014EO090001

Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing
journal, January 2014

  • Sherwood, Steven C.; Bony, Sandrine; Dufresne, Jean-Louis
  • Nature, Vol. 505, Issue 7481
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature12829

Atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6: ECHAM6
journal, April 2013

  • Stevens, Bjorn; Giorgetta, Marco; Esch, Monika
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 5, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jame.20015

An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
journal, April 2012

  • Taylor, Karl E.; Stouffer, Ronald J.; Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 93, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1

Works referencing / citing this record:

Evaluation of CMIP5 palaeo-simulations to improve climate projections
journal, July 2015

  • Harrison, S. P.; Bartlein, P. J.; Izumi, K.
  • Nature Climate Change, Vol. 5, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2649

Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models
journal, October 2016


Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organisation
journal, January 2015

  • Eyring, V.; Bony, S.; Meehl, G. A.
  • Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, Vol. 8, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmdd-8-10539-2015

Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization
journal, January 2016

  • Eyring, Veronika; Bony, Sandrine; Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016