pmip3:wg:p2f:methods
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
pmip3:wg:p2f:methods [2013/09/10 08:31] – [Introduction] jules | pmip3:wg:p2f:methods [2013/09/11 09:00] – [Overview of papers] jules | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
/* Title of the page... :-) */ | /* Title of the page... :-) */ | ||
- | ====== New PMIP3 page template ====== | ||
- | |||
- | <note info> | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | Thank you for creating this new page: '' | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | Please make sure that you **read the instructions below** before proceeding with the page creation...</ | ||
====== Introduction ====== | ====== Introduction ====== | ||
Line 59: | Line 50: | ||
The method most commonly used to date consists of finding a linear relationship between past and future climates in the ensemble and then using information derived from proxy data from past climate to constrain the ensemble. The figure shown below indicates this procedure for LGM tropical temperature change and climate sensitivity (based on Hargreaves et al GRL 2012). A significant correlation is found in the ensemble between these two variables. The uncertainty in the correlation and in the observational constraint are sampled by the red dots, from which a distribution for climate sensitivity can be derived (red arrows). In principle, however, the relationship between past and future climate may not be linear or so simple. It may indeed be a temporal or spatial pattern of climate change, in which case alternative methods are required. Bayesian methods may equally well be applied; a prior belief for climate sensitivity is updated by a likelihood function in which the models are weighted according to how well they agree with the observational constraint. One important challenge is to identify and quantify the different sources of uncertainties in this process. | The method most commonly used to date consists of finding a linear relationship between past and future climates in the ensemble and then using information derived from proxy data from past climate to constrain the ensemble. The figure shown below indicates this procedure for LGM tropical temperature change and climate sensitivity (based on Hargreaves et al GRL 2012). A significant correlation is found in the ensemble between these two variables. The uncertainty in the correlation and in the observational constraint are sampled by the red dots, from which a distribution for climate sensitivity can be derived (red arrows). In principle, however, the relationship between past and future climate may not be linear or so simple. It may indeed be a temporal or spatial pattern of climate change, in which case alternative methods are required. Bayesian methods may equally well be applied; a prior belief for climate sensitivity is updated by a likelihood function in which the models are weighted according to how well they agree with the observational constraint. One important challenge is to identify and quantify the different sources of uncertainties in this process. | ||
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
We hope this page will evolve in future. Initially, rather than being prescriptive about methods, we focus on providing a list of references. With each we provide a short description, | We hope this page will evolve in future. Initially, rather than being prescriptive about methods, we focus on providing a list of references. With each we provide a short description, | ||
- | |||
Line 79: | Line 69: | ||
_ Emulator : statistical technique consisting in calibrating a statistical model (generally a Gaussian process) for use as as surrogate to an actual climate simulator, in order to sample efficiently large input spaces, generally in the context of Bayesian inference or global sensitivity analysis | _ Emulator : statistical technique consisting in calibrating a statistical model (generally a Gaussian process) for use as as surrogate to an actual climate simulator, in order to sample efficiently large input spaces, generally in the context of Bayesian inference or global sensitivity analysis | ||
- | _ climate sensitivity : papers with attempting to contribute to the quantification off ‘climate sensitivity’ defined as change in the global average of surface air temperature in response to a doubling in CO2 concentration for pre-industrial | + | _ climate sensitivity : papers with attempting to contribute to the quantification off ‘climate sensitivity’ defined as change in the global average of surface air temperature in response to a doubling in CO2 concentration for pre-industrial. |
_ review / prospective : explicit enough. | _ review / prospective : explicit enough. | ||
Line 95: | Line 85: | ||
Chronological by publication date, most recent first: | Chronological by publication date, most recent first: | ||
- | **Reducing spread in climate model projections of a September ice-free Arctic**, Jiping Liu, Mirong Song, Radley M. Horton, and Yongyun Hu PNAS, 2013, 10.1073/ | + | == Reducing spread in climate model projections of a September ice-free Arctic]] == |
+ | Jiping Liu, Mirong Song, Radley M. Horton, and Yongyun Hu PNAS, 10.1073/ | ||
//keywords: CMIP, model ensemble, Arctic, Benchmark, past century// | //keywords: CMIP, model ensemble, Arctic, Benchmark, past century// | ||
- | In CMIP3, all sea-ice trends were less than observed. In CMIP5 there are models with both greater and lesser trends. Thus the result obtained by Liu et al is less far from the (new) ensemble mean than was the case for Boé et al 2009. | + | '' |
- | From the abstract: "Here we reduce the spread in the timing of an ice-free state using two different approaches for the 30 CMIP5 models: (i) model selection based on the ability to reproduce the observed sea ice climatology and variability since 1979 and (ii) constrained estimation based on the strong and persistent relationship between present and future sea ice conditions. Results from the two approaches show good agreement. Under a high-emission scenario both approaches project that September ice extent will drop to ∼1.7 million km2 in the mid 2040s and reach the ice-free state (defined as 1 million km2) in 2054–2058. Under a medium-mitigation scenario, both approaches project a decrease to ∼1.7 million km2 in the early 2060s, followed by a leveling off in the ice extent." | + | From the abstract: "Here we reduce the spread in the timing of an ice-free state using two different approaches for the 30 CMIP5 models: (i) model selection based on the ability to reproduce the observed sea ice climatology and variability since 1979 and (ii) constrained estimation based on the strong and persistent relationship between present and future sea ice conditions. Results from the two approaches show good agreement. Under a high-emission scenario both approaches project that September ice extent will drop to ∼1.7 million km2 in the mid 2040s and reach the ice-free state (defined as 1 million km2) in 2054–2058. Under a medium-mitigation scenario, both approaches project a decrease to ∼1.7 million km2 in the early 2060s, followed by a leveling off in the ice extent." |
+ | ==Precipitation scaling with temperature in warm and cold climates: an analysis of CMIP5 simulations.== | ||
+ | Li, G., Harrison, S. P., Bartlein, P. J., Izumi, K., & Prentice, I. C. Geophysical Research Letters. doi: | ||
- | Precipitation scaling with temperature in warm and cold climates: an analysis of CMIP5 simulations. Li, G., Harrison, S. P., Bartlein, P. J., Izumi, K., & Prentice, I. C. Geophysical Research Letters. doi:10.1002/grl.50730, 2013. | + | //keywords: CMIP, PMIP, model ensemble, LGM// |
- | keywords: CMIP, PMIP, model ensemble, LGM | + | '' |
+ | '' | ||
- | Abstract, "We investigate the scaling between precipitation and temperature changes in warm and cold climates using six models that have simulated the response | + | ==Using paleo-climate comparisons |
+ | G. A. Schmidt, J. D. Annan, P. J. Bartlein, B. I. Cook, E. Guilyardi, J. C. Hargreaves, S. P. Harrison, M. Kageyama, A. N. LeGrande, B. Konecky, S. Lovejoy, M. E. Mann, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Risi, D. Thompson13, A. Timmermann, L.-B. Tremblay, | ||
+ | //keywords: review/ | ||
- | Using paleo-climate comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5, G. A. Schmidt1, J. D. Annan, P. J. Bartlein, B. I. Cook, E. Guilyardi, J. C. Hargreaves, S. P. Harrison, M. Kageyama, A. N. LeGrande, B. Konecky, S. Lovejoy, M. E. Mann, V. Masson-Delmotte, | + | '' |
- | + | ||
- | keywords: review/ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | A 2013 discussion of recent progress in the field. Overview of general methods, and some examples, which include direct constraint of the multi-model ensemble as well slightly more qualitative examples, for example, looking at common patterns of precipitation changes in the models for past and future. | + | |
Recommendations for ways to tackle the problem are also included, | Recommendations for ways to tackle the problem are also included, | ||
- | "These examples illustrate some general points that should be required in any attempts to use the paleo-climate simulations to constrain future projections: | + | "These examples illustrate some general points that should be required in any attempts to use the paleo-climate simulations to constrain future projections: |
- | • The chosen metrics should be robust to uncertainties in external forcing, | + | |
- | • They should not be overly sensitive to the model representation of key phenomena, and are within the scope of the modelled system. | + | |
- | • A spatially diverse and, preferably multi-proxy, | + | |
- | • The relationship between metrics and targets in the past and future must be examined, and not simply assumed." | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Quantifying future climate change. Collins, M., Chandler, R. E., Cox, P. M., Huthnance, J. M., Rougier, J., & Stephenson, D. B. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 403–409. doi: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | keywords: prospective/ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Some background with links to other papers on probabilistic prediction, single model ensembles, metrics and the like. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | keywords: PMIP, climate sensitiivity, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Using the PMIP2 models and a reconstruction of LGM temperatures (Annan and Hargreaves 2013), to provide a constraint on climate sensitivity. Two different methods for constraining the ensemble were compared, which relied on an apparent correlation between tropical LGM temperature anomaly, and equilibrium climate sensitivity. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Statistical framework for evaluation of climate model simulations by use of climate proxy data from the last millennium – Part 1: Theory, Sundberg, R., A. Moberg and A. Hind, Clim. Past, 8, 1339-1353, doi: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | keywords : last millennium, test statistics, detection / attribution | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data | + | |
- | Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Masa Kageyama, Patrick J. Bartlein, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, | + | |
- | keywords: review/ | + | * The chosen metrics should be robust to uncertainties in external forcing, |
+ | * They should not be overly sensitive to the model representation of key phenomena, and are within the scope of the modelled system. | ||
+ | * A spatially diverse and, preferably multi-proxy, | ||
+ | * The relationship between metrics and targets in the past and future must be examined, and not simply assumed." | ||
- | Review paper focused on PMIP efforts, displaying relationships between | + | ==Quantifying future climate change== |
+ | Collins, M., Chandler, R. E., Cox, P. M., Huthnance, J. M., Rougier, J., & Stephenson, D. B. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 403–409. doi:10.1038/nclimate1414, | ||
+ | //keywords: prospective/ | ||
- | | + | '' |
- | keywords: model ensemble, CMIP3, modern, precipitation | + | ==Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? |
+ | J. C. Hargreaves, J. D. Annan, M. Yoshimori, and A. Abe-Ouchi, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L24702, doi: | ||
- | Finds a relationship between interannual variability and change in extremes of tropical precipitation under global warming in models. Uses satellite observations to estimate the response of the tropical extremes to global warming. | + | //keywords: PMIP, climate sensitiivity, |
+ | '' | ||
- | Skill and reliability | + | ==Statistical framework for evaluation |
- | and | + | Sundberg, R., A. Moberg |
- | Are paleoclimate model ensembles consistent with the MARGO data synthesis? J. C. Hargreaves, | + | |
- | keywords: | + | //keywords : last millennium, test statistics, evaluation, |
- | Show that PMIP2 and available PMIP3 models are reliable and have skill for air and surface ocean temperatures on broad scales, for the LGM. On the other hand, the MIROC single | + | '' |
+ | ==Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data== | ||
+ | Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Masa Kageyama, Patrick J. Bartlein, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, | ||
+ | //keywords: review/ | ||
- | A probabilistic calibration | + | '' |
- | Clim Dyn DOI 10.1007/ | + | |
- | keywords: Bayesian, emulator, terrestrial carbon, LGM | + | ==Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change== |
+ | O' | ||
- | Using an emulator of multiple varied parameters in the GENIE model. The emulated LGM ensemble | + | // |
+ | '' | ||
- | September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100, Julien Boé, Alex Hall and Xin Qu, Nature Geoscience 2, 341, doi:10.1038/ngeo467, 2009. | + | ==Skill and reliability of climate model ensembles at the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene== |
+ | J. C. Hargreaves, J. D. Annan1, R. Ohgaito, A. Paul, and A. Abe-Ouchi, Clim. Past, 9, 811–823, [[http:// | ||
- | keywords : model ensemble, past century, sea-ice, Arctic | + | //keywords: |
- | From the abstract: "Here we analyse the simulated trends in past sea-ice cover in 18 state-of-art-climate | + | '' |
+ | ==A probabilistic calibration of climate sensitivity and terrestrial carbon change in GENIE-1== | ||
+ | Philip B. Holden, N. R. Edwards, K. I. C. Oliver, T. M. Lenton & R. D. Wilkinson | ||
+ | Clim Dyn [[http:// | ||
- | Correlation between Inter-Model Similarities in Spatial Pattern for Present and Projected Future Mean Climate, Manabu Abe, Hideo Shiogama, Julia C. Hargreaves, James D. Annan, Toru Nozawa, and Seita Emori, SOLA, Vol. 5, 133‒136, doi:10.2151/sola.2009‒034 133 1, 3, 2009. | + | //keywords: Bayesian, emulator, terrestrial carbon, LGM// |
- | keywords: evaluation, past century, CMIP3, | + | '' |
- | One of several papers from around 2007-2009, looking for " | + | ==September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100== |
+ | Julien Boé, Alex Hall and Xin Qu, Nature Geoscience 2, 341, [[http:// | ||
+ | //keywords : model ensemble, past century, sea-ice, Arctic// | ||
- | Information on the early Holocene | + | '' |
- | H. Goosse, E. Driesschaert, | + | |
- | keywords: parameter ensemble, Holocene, sea-ice | + | ==Correlation between Inter-Model Similarities in Spatial Pattern for Present and Projected Future Mean Climate== |
+ | Manabu Abe, Hideo Shiogama, Julia C. Hargreaves, James D. Annan, Toru Nozawa, and Seita Emori, SOLA, Vol. 5, 133‒136, [[https:// | ||
- | Abstract. The summer sea ice extent strongly decreased in the Arctic over the last decades. This decline is very likely to continue in the future but uncertainty of projections is very large. An ensemble of experiments with the climate model LOVECLIM using 5 different parameter sets has been performed to show that summer sea ice changes during the early Holocene (8 kyr BP) and the 21st century are strongly linked, allowing for the reduction of this uncertainty. Using the limited number of records presently available for the early Holocene, simulations presenting very large changes over the 21st century | + | //keywords: evaluation, past century, |
+ | '' | ||
- | Assessment of the use of current | + | ==Information on the early Holocene |
+ | H. Goosse, E. Driesschaert, T. Fichefet, and M.-F. Loutre, Clim. Past, 3, 683-692, [[http:// | ||
- | keywords: | + | //keywords: |
- | One of several papers from around 2007-2009, looking for " | + | '' |
+ | ==Assessment of the use of current climate patterns to evaluate regional enhanced greenhouse response patterns of climate models== | ||
+ | Penny Whetton, Ian Macadam, Janice Bathols, and Julian O’Grady GRL, VOL. 34, L14701, [[http:// | ||
- | Does the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? | + | //keywords: evaluation, CMIP3, regional climate // |
- | M Crucifix, GRL, doi:10.1029/2006GL027137, | + | |
- | keywords: PMIP, climate | + | '' |
- | Finds no clear relationship past and future in the (then) small PMIP2 ensemble, and argues as a result that the LGM can only weakly | + | ==Does |
+ | M Crucifix, GRL, doi: | ||
+ | //keywords: PMIP, climate sensitivity, | ||
- | Using the past to constrain the future: how the palaeorecord | + | '' |
- | Progress in Physical Geography; 31; 481 DOI: 10.1177/ | + | |
- | keywords: review/prospective, climate sensitivity, | + | ==Using the past to constrain the future: how the palaeorecord can improve estimates of global warming== |
+ | Tamsin L. Edwards, Michel Crucifix and Sandy P. Harrison | ||
+ | Progress in Physical Geography; 31; 481 [[http:// | ||
- | A 2007 overview of efforts to use models to constrain | + | //keywords: review/ |
+ | '' | ||
- | Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change. Hall, A., & Qu, X. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(3), L03502. 2006 | + | ==Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change== |
+ | Hall, A., & Qu, X. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(3), L03502, [[http:// | ||
- | keywords: Northern hemisphere, PMIP, modern, model ensemble | + | //keywords: Northern hemisphere, PMIP, modern, model ensemble// |
- | From the abstract: | + | '' |
- | "Large intermodel variations in feedback strength in climate change are nearly perfectly correlated with comparably large intermodel variations in feedback strength in the context of the seasonal cycle. Moreover, the feedback strength in the real seasonal cycle can be measured and compared to simulated values. These mostly fall outside the range of the observed estimate, suggesting many models have an unrealistic snow albedo feedback in the seasonal cycle context. Because of the tight correlation between simulated feedback strength in the seasonal cycle and climate change, eliminating the model errors in the seasonal cycle will lead directly to a reduction in the spread of feedback strength in climate change. Though this comparison to observations may put the models in an unduly harsh light because of uncertainties in the observed estimate that are difficult to quantify, our results map out a clear strategy for targeted observation of the seasonal cycle to reduce divergence in simulations of climate sensitivity." | + | "Large intermodel variations in feedback strength in climate change are nearly perfectly correlated with comparably large intermodel variations in feedback strength in the context of the seasonal cycle. Moreover, the feedback strength in the real seasonal cycle can be measured and compared to simulated values. These mostly fall outside the range of the observed estimate, suggesting many models have an unrealistic snow albedo feedback in the seasonal cycle context. Because of the tight correlation between simulated feedback strength in the seasonal cycle and climate change, eliminating the model errors in the seasonal cycle will lead directly to a reduction in the spread of feedback strength in climate change. Though this comparison to observations may put the models in an unduly harsh light because of uncertainties in the observed estimate that are difficult to quantify, our results map out a clear strategy for targeted observation of the seasonal cycle to reduce divergence in simulations of climate sensitivity." |
+ | ==Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate== | ||
+ | Thomas Schneider von Deimling, Hermann Held, Andrey Ganopolski & Stefan Rahmstorf, Climate Dynamics, [[http:// | ||
- | Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble | + | //keywords: parameter |
- | keywords: parameter | + | '' |
- | Possibly the first attempt to use information derived from data for the LGM to directly constrain a model ensemble and provide a constrained prediction of a variable related to future climate (climate sensitivity in this case). A single model ensemble of the EMIC, CLIMBER was used, with the ensemble constrained with estimates of Tropical Atlantic SST for the LGM (GLAMAP). The influence of dust forcing, not included in most model configurations for the LGM climate, was shown to potentially cause a significant bias in the results. | ||
+ | ==Efficiently Constraining Climate Sensitivity with Ensembles of Paleoclimate Simulations== | ||
+ | J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves, R. Ohgaito, A. Abe-Ouchi and S. Emori, SOLA, Vol. 1, 181‒184, [[https:// | ||
- | Efficiently Constraining Climate Sensitivity with Ensembles of Paleoclimate Simulations, J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves, R. Ohgaito, A. Abe-Ouchi and S. Emori, SOLA, Vol. 1, 181‒184, doi: 10.2151/sola. 2005‒047 181, 2005. | + | //keywords: parameter ensemble, climate sensitivity, LGM, Bayesian// |
- | keywords: parameter | + | '' |
- | In this case, estimates of tropical SST taken from the literature were used to constrain a since model ensemble with varied parameters of the MIROC GCM. This MIROC ensemble has now been shown to be of much lower dispersion than the multi-model ensemble (Hargreaves et al above, and Yokohata et al 2010). Indeed it was found impossible | + | ====Authors==== |
+ | Contributors | ||
- | ===== What should I do now? ===== | + | James Annan, |
+ | Michel Crucifix, | ||
+ | Julia Hargreaves. | ||
- | < | ||
- | link and editing it. You can also directly type the name of your new page in the | ||
- | address bar of your browser. | ||
- | You may want to read at least once the doc about page names | ||
- | | ||
- | and namespaces (ie ' | ||
- | | ||
- | Remember that the PMIP3 wiki structure should look like | ||
- | | ||
- | | ||
- | | ||
- | | ||
- | | ||
- | |||
- | 2) Edit this page to display its source code | ||
- | 3) Change the code of the new page and save it. | ||
- | You should probably also remove most of the comments!</ | ||
/* standard page footer */ | /* standard page footer */ |
pmip3/wg/p2f/methods.txt · Last modified: 2025/05/05 15:21 by jypeter