Errors in Simple Climate Model Emulations of Past and Future Global Temperature Change

Climate model emulators are widely used to generate temperature projections for climate scenarios, including in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report. Here we evaluate the performance of a two‐layer energy balance model in emulating historical and future temperature projections from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models. We find that emulation errors can be large (>0.5°C for SSP2‐4.5) and differ markedly between climate models, forcing scenarios and time periods. Errors arise in emulating the near‐surface temperature response to both greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing; in some periods the errors due to these forcings oppose one another, giving the spurious impression of better emulator performance. Climate feedbacks are assumed constant in the emulator, introducing time‐varying or state dependent feedbacks may reduce prediction errors. Close emulations can be produced for a given period but, crucially, this does not guarantee reliable emulations of other scenarios and periods. Therefore, rigorous out‐of‐sample evaluation is necessary to characterize emulator performance.

[1]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Biased Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response Derived From Historical CMIP6 Simulations , 2021, Geophysical Research Letters.

[2]  S. Fueglistaler,et al.  The Peculiar Trajectory of Global Warming , 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[3]  M. Zelinka,et al.  Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[4]  Martin B. Stolpe,et al.  Climate Sensitivity Increases Under Higher CO2 Levels Due to Feedback Temperature Dependence , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[5]  T. Mauritsen,et al.  The 2000–2012 Global Warming Hiatus More Likely With a Low Climate Sensitivity , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[6]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesizing Earth System Knowledge for Probabilistic Climate Projections , 2020, Earth's future.

[7]  H. Fredriksen,et al.  Estimating Radiative Forcing With a Nonconstant Feedback Parameter and Linear Response , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[8]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response , 2020, Geoscientific Model Development.

[9]  Calibrating Simple Climate Models to Individual Earth System Models: Lessons Learned From Calibrating Hector , 2020, Earth and Space Science.

[10]  T. Andrews,et al.  Intermodel Spread in the Pattern Effect and Its Contribution to Climate Sensitivity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models , 2020 .

[11]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Effective Radiative Forcing in a GCM With Fixed Surface Temperatures , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[12]  P. Forster,et al.  Energy Budget Constraints on the Time History of Aerosol Forcing and Climate Sensitivity , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

[13]  C. Hannay,et al.  Comparison of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Estimates From Slab Ocean, 150‐Year, and Longer Simulations , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[14]  P. Stott,et al.  Optimal Estimation of Stochastic Energy Balance Model Parameters , 2020, Journal of Climate.

[15]  R. Colman,et al.  Understanding the links between climate feedbacks, variability and change using a two-layer energy balance model , 2020, Climate Dynamics.

[16]  T. Andrews,et al.  Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Estimated by Equilibrating Climate Models , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[17]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[18]  B. Stevens,et al.  On simple representations of the climate response to external radiative forcing , 2019, Climate Dynamics.

[19]  Jonathan M. Gregory,et al.  Accounting for Changing Temperature Patterns Increases Historical Estimates of Climate Sensitivity , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[20]  Karen A. McKinnon,et al.  An “Observational Large Ensemble” to Compare Observed and Modeled Temperature Trend Uncertainty due to Internal Variability , 2017 .

[21]  S. Bony,et al.  Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity , 2016, Earth's future.

[22]  T. Andrews,et al.  Recommendations for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6 , 2016 .

[23]  Reto Knutti,et al.  The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0)contribution to CMIP6 , 2016 .

[24]  Ken Caldeira,et al.  Dependence of global radiative feedbacks on evolving patterns of surface heat fluxes , 2016 .

[25]  Robert Pincus,et al.  The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): Experimental Protocol for CMIP6 , 2016 .

[26]  T. Andrews,et al.  Small global-mean cooling due to volcanic radiative forcing , 2016, Climate Dynamics.

[27]  R. Portmann,et al.  A Temporal Kernel Method to Compute Effective Radiative Forcing in CMIP5 Transient Simulations , 2016 .

[28]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization , 2015 .

[29]  T. Andrews,et al.  The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO2 , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[30]  M. Webb,et al.  The Dependence of Radiative Forcing and Feedback on Evolving Patterns of Surface Temperature Change in Climate Models , 2015 .

[31]  Jason Lowe,et al.  Corrigendum: Nonlinear regional warming with increasing CO 2 concentrations , 2015 .

[32]  Olivier Boucher,et al.  Adjustments in the Forcing-Feedback Framework for Understanding Climate Change , 2014 .

[33]  D. Saint‐Martin,et al.  Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part I: Analytical Solution and Parameter Calibration Using CMIP5 AOGCM Experiments , 2013 .

[34]  Olivier Geoffroy,et al.  Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part II: Representation of the Efficacy of Deep-Ocean Heat Uptake and Validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs , 2013 .

[35]  T. Andrews,et al.  Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models , 2013 .

[36]  Cecilia M. Bitz,et al.  Time-Varying Climate Sensitivity from Regional Feedbacks , 2012 .

[37]  Jonathan M. Gregory,et al.  A step‐response simple climate model to reconstruct and interpret AOGCM projections , 2011 .

[38]  Isaac M. Held,et al.  Importance of Ocean Heat Uptake Efficacy to Transient Climate Change , 2010 .

[39]  T. Delworth,et al.  Probing the Fast and Slow Components of Global Warming by Returning Abruptly to Preindustrial Forcing , 2010 .

[40]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The time‐dependence of climate sensitivity , 2000 .