Search

Internal climate variability will play a major role in determining change on regional scales under global warming. In the extratropics, large-scale atmospheric circulation is responsible for much of observed regional climate variability, from seasonal to multidecadal timescales. However, the extratropical circulation variability on multidecadal timescales is systematically weaker in coupled climate models. Here we show that projections of future extratropical climate from coupled model simulations significantly underestimate the projected uncertainty range originating from large-scale atmospheric circulation variability. Using observational datasets and large ensembles of coupled climate models, we produce synthetic ensemble projections constrained to have variability consistent with the large-scale atmospheric circulation in observations. Compared to the raw model projections, the synthetic observationally-constrained projections exhibit an increased uncertainty in projected 21st century temperature and precipitation changes across much of the Northern extratropics. This increased uncertainty is also associated with an increase of the projected occurrence of future extreme seasons. Future projections of northern hemisphere extratropical climate based on climate model simulations substantially underestimate the uncertainty that originates from large-scale atmospheric circulation variability, suggest synthetic ensemble projections constrained with observations.

Observations facilitate model evaluation and provide constraints that are relevant to future predictions and projections. Constraints for uninitialized projections are generally based on model performance in simulating climatology and climate change. For initialized predictions, skill scores over the hindcast period provide insight into the relative performance of models, and the value of initialization as compared to projections. Predictions and projections combined can, in principle, provide seamless decadal to multi-decadal climate information. For that, though, the role of observations in skill estimates and constraints needs to be understood in order to use both consistently across the prediction and projection time horizons. This paper discusses the challenges in doing so, illustrated by examples of state-of-the-art methods for predicting and projecting changes in European climate. It discusses constraints across prediction and projection methods, their interpretation, and the metrics that drive them such as process accuracy, accurate trends or high signal-to-noise ratio. We also discuss the potential to combine constraints to arrive at more reliable climate prediction systems from years to decades. To illustrate constraints on projections, we discuss their use in the UK's climate prediction system UKCP18, the case of model performance weights obtained from the Climate model Weighting by Independence and Performance (ClimWIP) method, and the estimated magnitude of the forced signal in observations from detection and attribution. For initialized predictions, skill scores are used to evaluate which models perform well, what might contribute to this performance, and how skill may vary over time. Skill estimates also vary with different phases of climate variability and climatic conditions, and are influenced by the presence of external forcing. This complicates the systematic use of observational constraints. Furthermore, we illustrate that sub-selecting simulations from large ensembles based on reproduction of the observed evolution of climate variations is a good testbed for combining projections and predictions. Finally, the methods described in this paper potentially add value to projections and predictions for users, but must be used with caution. All authors were supported by the EUCP project funded by the European Commission's Horizon 2020 programme, Grant Agreement number 776613. JM was also supported by the french ANR MOPGA project ARCHANGE and by the EU-H2020 Blue Action (GA 727852) and 4C projects (GA 821003). MGD also received funding by the Spanish Ministry for the Economy, Industry and Competitiveness grant reference RYC-2017-22964. Peer Reviewed "Article signat per 14 autors/es: Gabriele C. Hegerl, Andrew P. Ballinger, Ben B. B. Booth, Leonard F. Borchert, Lukas Brunner, Markus G. Donat, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Glen R. Harris, Jason Lowe, Rashed Mahmood, Juliette Mignot, James M. Murphy, Didier Swingedouw and Antje Weisheimer"

Political decisions, adaptation planning, and impact assessments need reliable estimates of future climate change and related uncertainties. To provide these estimates, different approaches to constrain, filter, or weight climate model projections into probabilistic distributions have been proposed. However, an assessment of multiple such methods to, for example, expose cases of agreement or disagreement, is often hindered by a lack of coordination, with methods focusing on a variety of variables, time periods, regions, or model pools. Here, a consistent framework is developed to allow a quantitative comparison of eight different methods; focus is given to summer temperature and precipitation change in three spatial regimes in Europe in 2041–60 relative to 1995–2014. The analysis draws on projections from several large ensembles, the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble, and perturbed physics ensembles, all using the high-emission scenario RCP8.5. The methods’ key features are summarized, assumptions are discussed, and resulting constrained distributions are presented. Method agreement is found to be dependent on the investigated region but is generally higher for median changes than for the uncertainty ranges. This study, therefore, highlights the importance of providing clear context about how different methods affect the assessed uncertainty—in particular, the upper and lower percentiles that are of interest to risk-averse stakeholders. The comparison also exposes cases in which diverse lines of evidence lead to diverging constraints; additional work is needed to understand how the underlying differences between methods lead to such disagreements and to provide clear guidance to users.

Climate models predict a strengthening contrast between wet and dry regions in the tropics and subtropics (30 °S–30 °N), and data from the latest model intercomparison project (CMIP6) support this expectation. Rainfall in ascending regions increases, and in descending regions decreases in climate models, reanalyses, and observational data. This strengthening contrast can be captured by tracking the rainfall change each month in the wettest and driest third of the tropics and subtropics combined. Since wet and dry regions are selected individually every month for each model ensemble member, and the observations, this analysis is largely unaffected by biases in location of precipitation features. Blended satellite and in situ data from 1988–2019 support the CMIP6-model-simulated tendency of sharpening contrasts between wet and dry regions, with rainfall in wet regions increasing substantially opposed by a slight decrease in dry regions. We detect the effect of external forcings on tropical and subtropical observed precipitation in wet and dry regions combined, and attribute this change for the first time to anthropogenic and natural forcings separately. Our results show that most of the observed change has been caused by increasing greenhouse gases. Natural forcings also contribute, following the drop in wet-region precipitation after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, while anthropogenic aerosol effects show only weak trends in tropic-wide wet and dry regions consistent with flat global aerosol forcing over the analysis period. The observed response to external forcing is significantly larger (p > 0.95) than the multi-model mean simulated response. As expected from climate models, the observed signal strengthens further when focusing on the wet tail of spatial distributions in both models and data.