Analysis of the variability of the North Atlantic eddy-driven jet stream in CMIP5

Assessing the performance of General Circulation Models (GCMs) in simulating historical regional precipitation is essential for climate assessments. This study analysed 18 GCMs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and 27 GCMs from Phase 6 (CMIP6) for the Florida Peninsula. Naïve combinations formed the CMIP5‐Ensemble and CMIP6‐Ensemble. The reference dataset consisted of global gridded precipitation data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. GCM‐simulated precipitation data were compared to the reference dataset across multiple time scales between 1951 and 2005. Most CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCMs exhibited a negative bias at the daily time scale, with an absolute value ranging between 0 and 2 mm day−1 at the median level, except for INM‐CM4 and MRI‐CGCM3 (CMIP5) and CNRM‐ESM2‐1 (CMIP6). Two performance metrics, that is, Pearson correlation and mean absolute error (MAE), were used to evaluate the GCMs. A correlation value above 0.3 is statistically significant at the significance level (α = 0.05). For the Pearson correlation between simulated and observed monthly precipitation, only 15% of CMIP5 GCMs (3 out of 19) had a median value above 0.3, whilst this increased to approximately 39% (11 out of 28) for CMIP6 GCMs. For monthly climatological precipitation, only 21% (4 out of 21) of GCMs in CMIP5 showed a correlation with a median value of 0.8 or higher. This percentage rose to 50% (14 out of 28) for CMIP6. A notable difference was observed in the MAE between CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models. Lastly, GCM raw outputs were evaluated based on rainy season characteristics (onset, demise and duration). Significant improvements from the CMIP5 to the CMIP6 models were observed in capturing the rainy season in the Florida Peninsula. This study thoroughly compares CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models in simulating historical precipitation at various time scales for the study region. Although the results are specific to the study area, the methods can be applied more broadly.

Using 24 years of cloud fraction (CF) data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations and their corresponding simulators in general circulation models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), we have analyzed cloud biases and their role on radiation over the Indian region (65–100° E and 5–40° N) for the monsoon season of June to September. The present study reports the spatial patterns of CFs and their biases in GCMs compared to observations. It is found that the simulated CFs are highly underestimated up to ~ 40%. Mean of total CF from ISCCP observations is 75% with at least 10% difference with simulated CFs. For high-topped clouds, this difference is about 3–4%. Except for high-topped clouds, other cloud types are not simulated realistically by CMIP5 models used in this study. Further, we investigated the individual cloud types classified based on cloud optical depth and cloud top pressure. We found that, in general, individual cloud types are poorly simulated by models, although some (Max Planck Institute Earth System Model, Low Resolution and Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model, version 2, Earth System) models convincingly simulate high-topped thin clouds. To assess the impact of cloud biases on the simulated radiative forcings, we studied shortwave and longwave cloud radiative forcings from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) observations and CMIP5 GCMs. It is noticed that the spatial patterns of biases in radiative forcings are similar to the patterns of biases in CFs for high-topped clouds, specifically over the oceanic regions. We find that the biases in cloud radiative forcings could potentially be caused due to the inefficacy of CMIP5 models in simulating high-topped anvil clouds (high-topped cirrus/stratocirrus clouds). The present study confirms that the uncertainty in simulating cloud fractions over the Indian region is still a prominent issue to be addressed in general circulation models.

A parallel comparison is made of the circulation climatology and the leading oscillation mode of the northern winter stratosphere among six reanalysis products and 24 CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) models. The results reveal that the NCEP/NCAR, NECP/DOE, ERA40, ERA-Interim and JRA25 reanalyses are quite consistent in describing the climatology and annual cycle of the stratospheric circulation. The 20CR reanalysis, however, exhibits a remarkable “cold pole” bias accompanied by a much stronger stratospheric polar jet, similar as in some CMIP5 models. Compared to the 1–2 month seasonal drift in most coupled general circulation models (GCMs), the seasonal cycle of the stratospheric zonal wind in most earth system models (ESMs) agrees very well with reanalysis. Similar to the climatology, the amplitude of Polar Vortex Oscillation (PVO) events also varies among CMIP5 models. The PVO amplitude in most GCMs is relatively weaker than in reanalysis, while that in most of the ESMs is more realistic. In relation to the “cold pole” bias and the weaker oscillation in some CMIP5 GCMs, the frequency of PVO events is significantly underestimated by CMIP5 GCMs; while in most ESMs, it is comparable to that in reanalysis. The PVO events in reanalysis (except in 20CR) mainly occur from mid-winter to early spring (January–March); but in some of the CMIP5 models, a 1–2 month delay exists, especially in most of the CMIP5 GCMs. The long-term trend of the PVO time series does not correspond to long-term changes in the frequency of PVO events in most of the CMIP5 models.

Atmospheric downward longwave radiation at the surface (Ld) quantifies the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This study evaluated Ld simulations from 44 general circulation models (GCMs) in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) with a comprehensive data set of Ld observations at 156 global‐distributed sites from 1992 to 2005. Compared with the Baseline Surface Radiation Network data that are of the highest quality among the available Ld data sets, CMIP5 GCM Ld has a negligible bias, much better than CMIP3 GCMs, likely because of the improvement of low cloud simulations in CMIP5 models. However, the selection of validation data has an important impact on the evaluation results. The global mean Ld inferred from different bias‐removing methods are nearly the same, approximately 341 W m−2 globally averaged from 1992 to 2005. CMIP5 GCMs showed that global Ld increased at a rate of 1.54 W m−2 per decade (p < 0.01) from 1979 to 2005, which is consistent with available reanalyses. This good agreement in long‐term trends of Ld is likely because both reanalyses and CMIP5 models reproduced the observed warming and the associated increase of water vapor content in the lower atmosphere. However, CMIP5 GCMs are still poor in producing monthly anomalies of Ld.

As the major renewable energy, wind can greatly reduce carbon emissions. Following the “carbon neutral” strategy, wind power could help to achieve the realization of energy transformation and green development. Based on ERA5 reanalysis data and the multi-ensemble historical and scenario simulations of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), a variety of statistical analyses are used to evaluate the performance of CMIP6 simulating the wind speed in China. The conclusions are as follows: spatial patterns of the nine CMIP6 models are similar with ERA5, but BCC-CSM2-MR and MRI-ESM2-0 highly overestimate the wind speed in northwest China. CESM2-WACCM, NorESM2-MM, and HadGEM3-GC31-MM behave better than the other six CMIP6 models in four specific regions are chosen for detailed study. CESM2-WACCM, NorESM2-MM, and HadGEM3-GC31-MM tend to simulate a larger wind speed than ERA5 except the yearly averaged wind speed in region II and region IV. CESM2-WACCM and NorESM2-MM simulate a large monthly mean wind speed, but the value is relatively close with ERA5 in the summer. HadGEM3-GC31-MM overestimates wind speed in region I and region II from April to October, but gets closer with ERA during winter. CESM2-WACCM, NorESM2-MM, and HadGEM3-GC31-MM simulate an increasing trend in Tibetan Plateau and Xinjiang in the next 100 years, while NorESM2-MM projects rising wind speed in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia, and HadGEM3-GC31-MM simulates increasing wind speed in the northeast and central China. The future wind speed in three models is projected to decline in region I, and the value of HadGEM3-GC31-MM is much larger. In region II, wind speed simulated by three models is projected to decrease, but the wind speed from HadGEM3-GC31-MM in region III and modeled wind speed in region IV from NorESM2-MM would climb with the slope equal to 0.0001 and 0.0012, respectively. This study indicates that the CMIP6 models have certain limitations to perform realistic wind changes, but CMIP6 could provide available reference for the projection of wind in specific areas.

In this study, we performed stationary and non-stationary frequency analysis of daily rainfall extreme series based on climate change scenarios by CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5) 8 GCMs (General Circulation Models). We extracted the annual maximum daily rainfall and it was conducted tendency test for the abnormality verification. The data consisted of 30 sets according to 30 years in units and sequential to year and to derive each set rank, the number of rainfall occurrences over 80 mm and the summer rainfall were calculated. For the stationary and non-stationary frequency analysis, Gumbel distribution was adopted and average precipitation, location and scale parameters were calculated for each set. As a result of the analysis, it is considered that the stationary frequency analysis in RCP 4.5 and the non-stationary frequency analysis in RCP 8.5 are valid, and it is expected that various scenarios will be reviewed in the near future. The results of this study are expected to be useful for the future climate change policies. Keywords: CMIP5, GCMs, Gumbel, Non-stationary Frequency Analysis, Probability Precipitation

Given the general notion that dynamical downscaling leads to added accuracy in both historical simulations as well as climate change projections, this paper investigates its validity over India using historical data (1975–2005) from the CORDEX models and their driving global climate models (GCMs) from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), and comparing them against observed temperature and rainfall. We find that downscaling invariably leads to an improvement in the spatial pattern of surface air temperature, but compared to the driving GCMs, the errors in magnitude after downscaling are even worse in some cases. In regard to JJAS rainfall simulations, the CMIP5 driving GCMs are found to be superior to their dynamically downscaled counterparts both in terms of spatial patterns as well as magnitude of errors. Both CMIP5 driving GCMs as well as the CORDEX models underestimate rainfall during JJAS; however, negative bias in CORDEX models is worse. Unlike the driving CMIP5 GCMs, their dynamically downscaled counterparts simulate an early onset followed by a slow and late withdrawal of the Indian summer monsoon rainfall. The frequency of occurrence of rainfall intensities is simulated well by both sets of models in the lower intensity regime (0–20 mm/day); however, for higher intensities, the driving CMIP5 GCMs underestimate whereas the CORDEX models overestimate.

Ensembles of climate change projections created by general circulation models (GCMs) with high resolution are increasingly needed to develop adaptation strategies for regional climate change. The Meteorological Research Institute atmospheric GCM version 3.2 (MRI-AGCM3.2), which is listed in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), has been typically run with resolutions of 60 km and 20 km. Ensembles of MRI-AGCM3.2 consist of members with multiple cumulus convection schemes and different patterns of future sea surface temperature, and are utilized together with their downscaled data; however, the limited size of the high-resolution ensemble may lead to undesirable biases and uncertainty in future climate projections that will limit its appropriateness and effectiveness for studies on climate change and impact assessments. In this study, to develop a comprehensive understanding of the regional precipitation simulated with MRI-AGCM3.2, we investigate how well MRI-AGCM3.2 simulates the present-day regional precipitation around the globe and compare the uncertainty in future precipitation changes and the change projection itself between MRI-AGCM3.2 and the CMIP5 multiple atmosphere–ocean coupled GCM (AOGCM) ensemble. MRI-AGCM3.2 reduces the bias of the regional mean precipitation obtained with the high-performing CMIP5 models, with a reduction of approximately 20% in the bias over the Tibetan Plateau through East Asia and Australia. When 26 global land regions are considered, MRI-AGCM3.2 simulates the spatial pattern and the regional mean realistically in more regions than the individual CMIP5 models. As for the future projections, in 20 of the 26 regions, the sign of annual precipitation change is identical between the 50th percentiles of the MRI-AGCM3.2 ensemble and the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble. In the other six regions around the tropical South Pacific, the differences in modeling with and without atmosphere–ocean coupling may affect the projections. The uncertainty in future changes in annual precipitation from MRI-AGCM3.2 partially overlaps the maximum–minimum uncertainty range from the full ensemble of the CMIP5 models in all regions. Moreover, on average over individual regions, the projections from MRI-AGCM3.2 spread over roughly 0.8 of the uncertainty range from the high-performing CMIP5 models compared to 0.4 of the range of the full ensemble.

Abstract. Simulation of the carbon cycle in climate models is important due to its impact on climate change, but many weaknesses in its reproduction were found in previous models. Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models (ESMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include the interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is expanded to compare CO2-concentration- and CO2-emission-driven historical simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 to observational data sets. A particular focus is on the differences in models with and without an interactive terrestrial nitrogen cycle. Overestimations of photosynthesis (gross primary productivity (GPP)) in CMIP5 were largely resolved in CMIP6 for participating models with an interactive nitrogen cycle but remaining for models without one. This points to the importance of including nutrient limitation. Simulating the leaf area index (LAI) remains challenging, with a large model spread in both CMIP5 and CMIP6. In ESMs, the global mean land carbon uptake (net biome productivity (NBP)) is well reproduced in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi-model means. However, this is the result of an underestimation of NBP in the Northern Hemisphere, which is compensated by an overestimation in the Southern Hemisphere and the tropics. Carbon stocks remain a large uncertainty in the models. While vegetation carbon content is slightly better represented in CMIP6, the inter-model range of soil carbon content remains the same between CMIP5 and CMIP6. Overall, a slight improvement in the simulation of land carbon cycle parameters is found in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5, but with many biases remaining, further improvements of models in particular for LAI and NBP is required. Models from modeling groups participating in both CMIP phases generally perform similarly or better in their CMIP6 compared to their CMIP5 models. This improvement is not as significant in the multi-model means due to more new models in CMIP6, especially those using older versions of the Community Land Model (CLM). Emission-driven simulations perform just as well as the concentration-driven models, despite the added process realism. Due to this, we recommend that ESMs in future Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases perform emission-driven simulations as the standard so that climate–carbon cycle feedbacks are fully active. The inclusion of the nitrogen limitation led to a large improvement in photosynthesis compared to models not including this process, suggesting the need to view the nitrogen cycle as a necessary part of all future carbon cycle models. Possible benefits when including further limiting nutrients such as phosphorus should also be considered.

Developing the renewable energy matrix of South America (SA) is fundamental for sustainable socioeconomic growth and mitigating climate change's adverse effects. Thus, this study estimates changes in SA's solar irradiance and solar power potential using data from eight global climate models (GCMs) belonging to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project—Phase 6 (CMIP6). Applying statistical downscaling and bias correction with the Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM) technique, we evaluate projected changes in the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Photovoltaic Power (PVP) outputs under different future climate scenarios (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5). Historical simulations (1995–2014) are validated using ERA5 reanalysis and CLARA-A3 satellite observations. The QDM method reduces the models' systematic biases, decreasing the ensemble's errors by 50% across SA throughout the year. Regarding future decades (2020–2099), the CMIP6 ensemble shows spatial and seasonal variability in solar generation. For CSP, estimates suggest that regions traditionally favorable to solar energy generation (such as the Brazilian Northeast and portions of Chile) will maintain their suitable conditions during the 21st century, projecting a potential 1–6% increase (particularly under the SSP5-8.5 scenario in southern Chile and most of Brazil). Concerning PVP generation, the CMIP6 ensemble projects a rise of 1–4% (mainly under the SSP5-8.5 scenario in the Amazonia, Midwest, and Southeast Brazilian sectors). Moreover, trend analyses projected individually by the CMIP6 GCMs converge on an increasing PVP, mainly in Brazil's Amazonia and Midwest regions. In contrast, for South Brazil, approximately 84% of the projections show a negative trend (or no trend), evidencing unfavorable or uncertain conditions for solar generation development in the region. Despite the data and processes' inherent limitations, this study yields a first analysis of statistically downscaled projections from CMIP6 for solar power generation in South America, providing valuable information for energy sector decision-makers.

The process of estimating the effect of a changing climate on the severity of future ocean storms is plagued by large uncertainties; for safe design and operation of offshore structures, it is nevertheless important that best possible estimates of climate effects is made given the available data. We explore the variability in estimates of 100-year return value of significant wave height (HS), and changes in estimates over a period of time, for output of WAVEWATCH-III models from 7 representative Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 5 General Circulation Models (GCMs), and the FIO-ESM v2.0 CMIP Phase 6 GCM. Non-stationary extreme value analysis of peaks-over-threshold and block maxima using Bayesian inference provide posterior estimates of return values as a function of time; MATLAB software for the extreme value analysis is provided. Best overall estimates for return values, and changes in return value over the period 1979-2100, are calculated by averaging estimates for individual GCMs. We focus attention on neighbourhoods of locations east of Madagascar and south of Australia where a previous study of CMIP5-derived output reported significant decrease and increase in HS respectively, under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. There is large variation between return value estimates from different GCMs, and with longitude and latitude within each neighbourhood for estimates based on samples corresponding to ≤ 165 years of model output; these sources of uncertainty tend to be larger than those due to typical modelling choices (such as choice of threshold for peaks over threshold, or block length for block maxima). However, we also find that careful threshold choice and block length are critical east of Madagascar, because of the presence of a mixed population of storms there. Nevertheless, there is general evidence supporting the trends reported by others, but these findings are conditional on the choice of 8 GCMs being representative of climate evolution. We use simple randomisation testing to identify “significant” departures from steady climate. The long 700-year pre-industrial control (piControl) output of the CMIP6 GCM offers an excellent opportunity to quantify the apparent inherent variability in return value as a function of time, estimated using a subsample of output corresponding to a continuous time interval of between 20 and 160 years in length, where no climate forcing is present. We find large variation in return value estimates of approximately ±15% made from samples corresponding to periods of time of around 50 years drawn from piControl data.

This study evaluated the historical precipitation simulations of 49 global climate models (GCMs) of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) in reproducing annual and seasonal precipitation climatology, linear trends, and their spatial correlation with global SST across Africa and the Arabian Peninsula during the period of 1980–2014, using Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCP) data as a reference. Taylor’s diagram was used to quantify the strengths and weaknesses of the models in simulating precipitation. The CMIP6 multi-mean ensemble (MME) and the majority of the GCMs replicated the dominant features of the spatial and temporal variations reasonably well. The CMIP6 MME outperformed the majority of the individual models. The spatial variation of the CMIP6 MME closely matched the observation. The results showed that at annual and seasonal scales, the GPCP and CMIP6 MME reproduced a coherent spatial pattern in terms of the magnitude of precipitation. The humid region received >300 mm and the arid region received <50 mm across Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The models from the same modeling centers replicated the precipitation levels across different seasons and regions. The CMIP6 MME and the majority of the individual models overestimate (underestimate) in humid (arid and semi-arid)-climate zones. The annual and pre-monsoon seasons (i.e., DJFMA) were better replicated in the CMIP6 GCMs than in the monsoon-precipitation model (MJJASON). The CMIP6 MME (GPCP) showed stronger wetting (drying) trends in the northern hemisphere. In contrast, a strong drying trend in the CMIP6 MME and a weak wetting trend in the GPCP were shown in the Southern Hemisphere. The CMIP6 MME captures the spatial pattern of linear trends better than individual models across different climate zones and regions. The relationship between precipitation and sea-surface temperature (SST) exhibited a high spatial correlation (−0.80 and 0.80) with large variability across different regions and climate zones. The GPCP (CMIP6 MME) exhibited a heterogenous (homogeneous) spatial pattern, with higher correlation coefficients recorded in the CMIP6 MME than in the GPCP in all cases. Individual models from the same modeling centers showed spatial homogeneity in correlation values. The differences exhibited by the individual GCMs highlight the significance of each model’s unique dynamics and physics; however, model selection should be considered for specific applications.

Investigation of the role of multiple general circulation model (GCM) ensembles in obtaining comprehensive knowledge of hydrological responses across the Yellow River Basin (YRB), China, is still of substantial importance. This study evaluates the performance of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models in simulating the hydrological regime in the YRB and compares the results with those from CMIP 5 (CMIP5). The comparison is performed between 21 GCMs from CMIP6 under three Shared Socioeconomic Pathway scenarios and 18 GCMs from CMIP5 under three Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios. Raw CMIP outputs are first corrected and downscaled by the Bias Correction and Spatial Disaggregation methods, and the bias-corrected GCM outputs are then employed to drive the Soil and Water Assessment Tool hydrological model and project streamflow. After correction and downscaling, areal averages for future changes (relative to 1971–2000) of temperature and precipitation are found larger in CMIP6 than in CMIP5. The emblematic annual mean temperature of CMIP6 increases by 1.64–2.20 and 2.31–5.29 °C for the future period of 2026–2055 and 2066–2095, while the counterpart of CMIP5 is 1.92–2.39 and 1.68–4.76 °C, respectively. In terms of precipitation, for CMIP6, it increases by 3.45–4.70 and 6.77–15.40%, and for CMIP5 by 2.58–2.96 and 3.83–9.95%. It is further concluded that: (1) future streamflow will probably decrease less under CMIP6 than that under CMIP5 in most cases, and climate changes of this kind will affect regional water supply and security in the YRB; (2) uncertainty in the projected streamflow is dominated by GCMs uncertainty with the contribution rate of >75%; (3) the streamflow is more sensitive to precipitation changes in comparison with temperature changes in the near future. In contrast, streamflow reduction is more attributed to an increase in temperature with a contribution rate of almost >60% than in precipitation in the far future.

Intercomparison of the expected change in the temperature and the precipitation retrieved from CMIP6 and CMIP5 climate projections: A Mediterranean hot spot case, Turkey

A systematic analysis of the winter North Atlantic eddy-driven jet stream latitude and wind speed from 52 model integrations, taken from the coupled model intercomparison project phase 3, is carried out and compared to results obtained from the ERA-40 reanalyses. We consider here a control simulation, twentieth century simulation, and two time periods (2046–2065 and 2081–2100) from a twenty-first century, high-emission A2 forced simulation. The jet wind speed seasonality is found to be similar between the twentieth century simulations and the ERA-40 reanalyses and also between the control and forced simulations although nearly half of the models overestimate the amplitude of the seasonal cycle. A systematic equatorward bias of the models jet latitude seasonality, by up to 7°, is observed, and models additionally overestimate the seasonal cycle of jet latitude about the mean, with the majority of the models showing equatorward and poleward biases during the cold and warm seasons respectively. A main finding of this work is that no GCM under any forcing scenario considered here is able to simulate the trimodal behaviour of the observed jet latitude distribution. The models suffer from serious problems in the structure of jet variability, rather than just quantitiative errors in the statistical moments.