Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6
<p>Partitioning uncertainty in projections of future climate change into contributions from internal variability, model response uncertainty and emissions scenarios has historically relied on making assumptions about forced changes in the mean and variability. With the advent of multiple singl...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2020-05-01
|
Series: | Earth System Dynamics |
Online Access: | https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/491/2020/esd-11-491-2020.pdf |
id |
doaj-fc7b77fd30d64bccaa62197a49c82a46 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-fc7b77fd30d64bccaa62197a49c82a462020-11-25T03:51:00ZengCopernicus PublicationsEarth System Dynamics2190-49792190-49872020-05-011149150810.5194/esd-11-491-2020Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6F. Lehner0F. Lehner1C. Deser2N. Maher3J. Marotzke4E. M. Fischer5L. Brunner6R. Knutti7E. Hawkins8Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandClimate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USAClimate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USAMax Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, GermanyMax Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, GermanyInstitute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandNational Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK<p>Partitioning uncertainty in projections of future climate change into contributions from internal variability, model response uncertainty and emissions scenarios has historically relied on making assumptions about forced changes in the mean and variability. With the advent of multiple single-model initial-condition large ensembles (SMILEs), these assumptions can be scrutinized, as they allow a more robust separation between sources of uncertainty. Here, the framework from Hawkins and Sutton (2009) for uncertainty partitioning is revisited for temperature and precipitation projections using seven SMILEs and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CMIP5 and CMIP6 archives. The original approach is shown to work well at global scales (potential method bias <span class="inline-formula"><</span> 20 %), while at local to regional scales such as British Isles temperature or Sahel precipitation, there is a notable potential method bias (up to 50 %), and more accurate partitioning of uncertainty is achieved through the use of SMILEs. Whenever internal variability and forced changes therein are important, the need to evaluate and improve the representation of variability in models is evident. The available SMILEs are shown to be a good representation of the CMIP5 model diversity in many situations, making them a useful tool for interpreting CMIP5. CMIP6 often shows larger absolute and relative model uncertainty than CMIP5, although part of this difference can be reconciled with the higher average transient climate response in CMIP6. This study demonstrates the added value of a collection of SMILEs for quantifying and diagnosing uncertainty in climate projections.</p>https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/491/2020/esd-11-491-2020.pdf |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
F. Lehner F. Lehner C. Deser N. Maher J. Marotzke E. M. Fischer L. Brunner R. Knutti E. Hawkins |
spellingShingle |
F. Lehner F. Lehner C. Deser N. Maher J. Marotzke E. M. Fischer L. Brunner R. Knutti E. Hawkins Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 Earth System Dynamics |
author_facet |
F. Lehner F. Lehner C. Deser N. Maher J. Marotzke E. M. Fischer L. Brunner R. Knutti E. Hawkins |
author_sort |
F. Lehner |
title |
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 |
title_short |
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 |
title_full |
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 |
title_fullStr |
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 |
title_full_unstemmed |
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 |
title_sort |
partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and cmip5/6 |
publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
series |
Earth System Dynamics |
issn |
2190-4979 2190-4987 |
publishDate |
2020-05-01 |
description |
<p>Partitioning uncertainty in projections of future climate change
into contributions from internal variability, model response uncertainty
and emissions scenarios has historically relied on making assumptions about
forced changes in the mean and variability. With the advent of multiple
single-model initial-condition large ensembles (SMILEs), these assumptions
can be scrutinized, as they allow a more robust separation between sources
of uncertainty. Here, the framework from Hawkins and Sutton (2009) for
uncertainty partitioning is revisited for temperature and precipitation
projections using seven SMILEs and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CMIP5 and CMIP6 archives. The original approach is shown to work
well at global scales (potential method bias <span class="inline-formula"><</span> 20 %), while at
local to regional scales such as British Isles temperature or Sahel
precipitation, there is a notable potential method bias (up to 50 %), and
more accurate partitioning of uncertainty is achieved through the use of
SMILEs. Whenever internal variability and forced changes therein are
important, the need to evaluate and improve the representation of
variability in models is evident. The available SMILEs are shown to be a
good representation of the CMIP5 model diversity in many situations, making
them a useful tool for interpreting CMIP5. CMIP6 often shows larger absolute
and relative model uncertainty than CMIP5, although part of this difference
can be reconciled with the higher average transient climate response in
CMIP6. This study demonstrates the added value of a collection of SMILEs for
quantifying and diagnosing uncertainty in climate projections.</p> |
url |
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/491/2020/esd-11-491-2020.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT flehner partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT flehner partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT cdeser partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT nmaher partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT jmarotzke partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT emfischer partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT lbrunner partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT rknutti partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 AT ehawkins partitioningclimateprojectionuncertaintywithmultiplelargeensemblesandcmip56 |
_version_ |
1724489348378787840 |