skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

This content will become publicly available on January 7, 2020

Title: Taking climate model evaluation to the next level

Abstract

We report that earth system models are complex and represent a large number of processes, resulting in a persistent spread across climate projections for a given future scenario. Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal. This Perspective discusses newly developed tools that facilitate a more rapid and comprehensive evaluation of model simulations with observations, process-based emergent constraints that are a promising way to focus evaluation on the observations most relevant to climate projections, and advanced methods for model weighting. Lastly, these approaches are needed to distil the most credible information on regional climate changes, impacts, and risks for stakeholders and policy-makers.

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2];  [3];  [4]; ORCiD logo [5];  [4]; ORCiD logo [6];  [1];  [7]; ORCiD logo [8];  [9]; ORCiD logo [10]; ORCiD logo [11]; ORCiD logo [4];  [12]; ORCiD logo [13]; ORCiD logo [14]; ORCiD logo [10];  [15]; ORCiD logo [15] more »; ORCiD logo [10];  [16]; ORCiD logo [17]; ORCiD logo [15];  [4]; ORCiD logo [5];  [15]; ORCiD logo [17];  [2] « less
  1. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Oberpfaffenhofen (Germany); University of Bremen (Germany)
  2. University of Exeter (United Kingdom)
  3. Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Victoria, British Columbia (Canada)
  4. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  5. University of New South Wales, Sydney (Australia)
  6. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States); Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA (United States)
  7. Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
  8. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States); Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (United States)
  9. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD (United States)
  10. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States)
  11. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter (United Kingdom)
  12. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton, NJ (United States)
  13. Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD), IPSL, Paris (France)
  14. Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich (Switzerland)
  15. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO (United States)
  16. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY (United States)
  17. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23)
OSTI Identifier:
1495951
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC05-00OR22725; FC02-97ER62402
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Nature Climate Change
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 9; Journal Issue: 2; Journal ID: ISSN 1758-678X
Publisher:
Nature Publishing Group
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Eyring, Veronika, Cox, Peter M., Flato, Gregory M., Gleckler, Peter J., Abramowitz, Gab, Caldwell, Peter, Collins, William D., Gier, Bettina K., Hall, Alex D., Hoffman, Forrest M., Hurtt, George C., Jahn, Alexandra, Jones, Chris D., Klein, Stephen A., Krasting, John P., Kwiatkowski, Lester, Lorenz, Ruth, Maloney, Eric, Meehl, Gerald A., Pendergrass, Angeline G., Pincus, Robert, Ruane, Alex C., Russell, Joellen L., Sanderson, Benjamin M., Santer, Benjamin D., Sherwood, Steven C., Simpson, Isla R., Stouffer, Ronald J., and Williamson, Mark S. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. United States: N. p., 2019. Web. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y.
Eyring, Veronika, Cox, Peter M., Flato, Gregory M., Gleckler, Peter J., Abramowitz, Gab, Caldwell, Peter, Collins, William D., Gier, Bettina K., Hall, Alex D., Hoffman, Forrest M., Hurtt, George C., Jahn, Alexandra, Jones, Chris D., Klein, Stephen A., Krasting, John P., Kwiatkowski, Lester, Lorenz, Ruth, Maloney, Eric, Meehl, Gerald A., Pendergrass, Angeline G., Pincus, Robert, Ruane, Alex C., Russell, Joellen L., Sanderson, Benjamin M., Santer, Benjamin D., Sherwood, Steven C., Simpson, Isla R., Stouffer, Ronald J., & Williamson, Mark S. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. United States. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y.
Eyring, Veronika, Cox, Peter M., Flato, Gregory M., Gleckler, Peter J., Abramowitz, Gab, Caldwell, Peter, Collins, William D., Gier, Bettina K., Hall, Alex D., Hoffman, Forrest M., Hurtt, George C., Jahn, Alexandra, Jones, Chris D., Klein, Stephen A., Krasting, John P., Kwiatkowski, Lester, Lorenz, Ruth, Maloney, Eric, Meehl, Gerald A., Pendergrass, Angeline G., Pincus, Robert, Ruane, Alex C., Russell, Joellen L., Sanderson, Benjamin M., Santer, Benjamin D., Sherwood, Steven C., Simpson, Isla R., Stouffer, Ronald J., and Williamson, Mark S. Mon . "Taking climate model evaluation to the next level". United States. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y.
@article{osti_1495951,
title = {Taking climate model evaluation to the next level},
author = {Eyring, Veronika and Cox, Peter M. and Flato, Gregory M. and Gleckler, Peter J. and Abramowitz, Gab and Caldwell, Peter and Collins, William D. and Gier, Bettina K. and Hall, Alex D. and Hoffman, Forrest M. and Hurtt, George C. and Jahn, Alexandra and Jones, Chris D. and Klein, Stephen A. and Krasting, John P. and Kwiatkowski, Lester and Lorenz, Ruth and Maloney, Eric and Meehl, Gerald A. and Pendergrass, Angeline G. and Pincus, Robert and Ruane, Alex C. and Russell, Joellen L. and Sanderson, Benjamin M. and Santer, Benjamin D. and Sherwood, Steven C. and Simpson, Isla R. and Stouffer, Ronald J. and Williamson, Mark S.},
abstractNote = {We report that earth system models are complex and represent a large number of processes, resulting in a persistent spread across climate projections for a given future scenario. Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal. This Perspective discusses newly developed tools that facilitate a more rapid and comprehensive evaluation of model simulations with observations, process-based emergent constraints that are a promising way to focus evaluation on the observations most relevant to climate projections, and advanced methods for model weighting. Lastly, these approaches are needed to distil the most credible information on regional climate changes, impacts, and risks for stakeholders and policy-makers.},
doi = {10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
number = 2,
volume = 9,
place = {United States},
year = {2019},
month = {1}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
This content will become publicly available on January 7, 2020
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Argo float data and metadata from Global Data Assembly Centre (Argo GDAC)
dataset, January 2018

  • Fumihiko, Akazawa; Turki, Alraddadi; Pascual, Ananda
  • DOI: 10.17882/42182