Applicability of CMIP6 models for building climate projections for northern Europe

Abstract

In this report, we have evaluated the performance of nearly 40 global climate models (GCMs) participating in Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The focus is on the northern European area, but the ability to simulate southern European and global climate is discussed as well. Model evaluation was started with a technical control; completely unrealistic values in the GCM output files were identified by seeking the absolute minimum and maximum values. In this stage, one GCM was rejected totally, and furthermore individual output files from two other GCMs. In evaluating the remaining GCMs, the primary tool was the Model Climate Performance Index (MCPI) that combines RMS errors calculated for the different climate variables into one index. The index takes into account both the seasonal and spatial variations in climatological means. Here, MCPI was calculated for the period 1981—2010 by comparing GCM output with the ERA-Interim reanalyses. Climate variables explored in the evaluation were the surface air temperature, precipitation, sea level air pressure and incoming solar radiation at the surface. Besides MCPI, we studied RMS errors in the seasonal course of the spatial means by examining each climate variable separately. Furthermore, the evaluation procedure considered model performance in simulating past trends in the global-mean temperature, the compatibility of future responses to different greenhouse-gas scenarios and the number of available scenario runs. Daily minimum and maximum temperatures were likewise explored in a qualitative sense, but owing to the non-existence of data from multiple GCMs, these variables were not incorporated in the quantitative validation. Four of the 37 GCMs that had passed the initial technical check were regarded as wholly unusable for scenario calculations: in two GCMs the responses to the different greenhouse gas scenarios were contradictory and in two other GCMs data were missing from one of the four key climate variables. Moreover, to reduce inter-GCM dependencies, no more than two variants of any individual GCM were included; this led to an abandonment of one GCM. The remaining 32 GCMs were divided into three quality classes according to the assessed performance. The users of model data can utilize this grading to select a subset of GCMs to be used in elaborating climate projections for Finland or adjacent areas. Annual-mean temperature and precipitation projections for Finland proved to be nearly identical regardless of whether they were derived from the entire ensemble or by ignoring models that had obtained the lowest scores. Solar radiation projections were somewhat more sensitive.