Are general circulation models obsolete?

Traditional general circulation models, or GCMs – i.e. 3D dynamical models with unresolved terms represented in equations with tunable parameters – have been a mainstay of climate research for several decades, and some of the pioneering studies have recently been recognized by a Nobel prize in Physics. Yet, there is considerable debate around their continuing role in the future. Frequently mentioned as limitations of GCMs are the structural error and uncertainty across models with different representations of unresolved scales; and the fact that the models are tuned to reproduce certain aspects of the observed Earth. We consider these shortcomings in the context of a future generation of models that may address these issues through substantially higher resolution and detail, or through the use of machine learning techniques to match them better to observations, theory, and process models. It is our contention that calibration, far from being a weakness of models, is an essential element in the simulation of complex systems, and contributes to our understanding of their inner workings. Models can be calibrated to reveal both fine-scale detail, or the global response to external perturbations. New methods enable us to articulate and improve the connections between the different levels of abstract representation of climate processes, and our understanding resides in an entire hierarchy of models where GCMs will continue to play a central role for the foreseeable future..

[1]  V. Balaji,et al.  Semi‐Automatic Tuning of Coupled Climate Models With Multiple Intrinsic Timescales: Lessons Learned From the Lorenz96 Model , 2022, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[2]  G. Schmidt,et al.  Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem , 2022, Nature.

[3]  B. Gabrys,et al.  Toward Digital Twin Oriented Modeling of Complex Networked Systems and Their Dynamics: A Comprehensive Survey , 2022, IEEE Access.

[4]  K. Amunts,et al.  Linking Brain Structure, Activity, and Cognitive Function through Computation , 2022, eNeuro.

[5]  Non-local parameterization of atmospheric subgrid processes with neural networks , 2022, 2201.00417.

[6]  B. Thirion,et al.  The coming decade of digital brain research: A vision for neuroscience at the intersection of technology and computing , 2024, Imaging Neuroscience.

[7]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[8]  H. Christensen,et al.  The Fractal Nature of Clouds in Global Storm‐Resolving Models , 2021, Geophysical Research Letters.

[9]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Past abrupt changes, tipping points and cascading impacts in the Earth system , 2021, Nature Geoscience.

[10]  C. Schär,et al.  Inter-model Variability in Convection-Resolving Simulations of Subtropical Marine Low Clouds , 2021, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II.

[11]  T. Schneider,et al.  A Library of Large-eddy Simulations for Calibrating Cloud Parameterizations , 2021 .

[12]  Oliver R. A. Dunbar,et al.  Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Convective Parameters in an Idealized GCM , 2020, 2012.13262.

[13]  James Salter,et al.  Process‐Based Climate Model Development Harnessing Machine Learning: I. A Calibration Tool for Parameterization Improvement , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[14]  Fleur Couvreux,et al.  Process‐Based Climate Model Development Harnessing Machine Learning: II. Model Calibration From Single Column to Global , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[15]  Tapio Schneider,et al.  Calibrate, emulate, sample , 2020, J. Comput. Phys..

[16]  EPISTEMIC CHALLENGES OF DIGITAL TWINS & VIRTUAL BRAINS PERSPECTIVES FROM FUNDAMENTAL NEUROETHICS , 2021 .

[17]  A. Wills,et al.  Physics-informed machine learning , 2021, Nature Reviews Physics.

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

[19]  P. Bauer,et al.  A Baseline for Global Weather and Climate Simulations at 1 km Resolution , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[20]  A. Wing,et al.  Understanding the Extreme Spread in Climate Sensitivity within the Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project , 2020, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[21]  R. Moss,et al.  Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6 , 2020 .

[22]  Zane K. Martin,et al.  Clouds and Convective Self‐Aggregation in a Multimodel Ensemble of Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Simulations , 2020, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[23]  M. J. Chinita,et al.  Intercomparison of Large-Eddy Simulations of the Antarctic Boundary Layer for Very Stable Stratification , 2020, Boundary-Layer Meteorology.

[24]  R. Schumacher,et al.  The formation, character and changing nature of mesoscale convective systems , 2020, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.

[25]  T. Hoefler,et al.  Kilometer-Scale Climate Models: Prospects and Challenges , 2020 .

[26]  K. Taylor,et al.  Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[27]  Yiguo Wang,et al.  The mean state and variability of the North Atlantic circulation: a perspective from ocean reanalyses , 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.

[28]  Shian-Jiann Lin,et al.  Structure and Performance of GFDL's CM4.0 Climate Model , 2019, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

[29]  Shian-Jiann Lin,et al.  DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains , 2019, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science.

[30]  S. Bachman The GM+E closure: A framework for coupling backscatter with the Gent and McWilliams parameterization , 2019, Ocean Modelling.

[31]  T. Schneider,et al.  Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming , 2019, Nature Geoscience.

[32]  Nils Wedi,et al.  Assessing the scales in numerical weather and climate predictions: will exascale be the rescue? , 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

[33]  George Ellis,et al.  Top-down effects in the brain. , 2019, Physics of life reviews.

[34]  Robert Pincus,et al.  ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing , 2018, Earth System Dynamics.

[35]  J. R. Wilson,et al.  The GFDL Global Atmosphere and Land Model AM4.0/LM4.0: 2. Model Description, Sensitivity Studies, and Tuning Strategies , 2018 .

[36]  P. Gent A commentary on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation stability in climate models , 2018 .

[37]  Wilfried Sihn,et al.  Digital Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification , 2018 .

[38]  Yves Frégnac,et al.  Big data and the industrialization of neuroscience: A safe roadmap for understanding the brain? , 2017, Science.

[39]  Cecile Hannay,et al.  Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six U.S. modeling centers. , 2017, Geoscientific model development.

[40]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Toward low‐cloud‐permitting cloud superparameterization with explicit boundary layer turbulence , 2017 .

[41]  Simon T. K. Lang,et al.  Stochastic representations of model uncertainties at ECMWF: state of the art and future vision , 2017 .

[42]  T. Schneider,et al.  Numerics and subgrid‐scale modeling in large eddy simulations of stratocumulus clouds , 2017, Journal of advances in modeling earth systems.

[43]  Andrew Gettelman,et al.  The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning , 2017 .

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

[45]  Daniel B. Williamson,et al.  Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model , 2016 .

[46]  Giovanni Aloisio,et al.  CPMIP: Measurements of Real Computational Performance of Earth System Models , 2016 .

[47]  Peter Bauer,et al.  The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction , 2015, Nature.

[48]  R. Hallberg,et al.  Parameterization of eddy fluxes based on a mesoscale energy budget , 2015 .

[49]  J. Palter The role of the Gulf Stream in European climate. , 2015, Annual review of marine science.

[50]  Claudia Tebaldi,et al.  Pattern scaling: Its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations , 2014, Climatic Change.

[51]  Robert Hallberg,et al.  Using a resolution function to regulate parameterizations of oceanic mesoscale eddy effects , 2013 .

[52]  Michael Goldstein,et al.  History matching for exploring and reducing climate model parameter space using observations and a large perturbed physics ensemble , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[53]  Julie Deshayes,et al.  Eddy contributions to the meridional transport of salt in the North Atlantic , 2012 .

[54]  Paul J. Valdes,et al.  Built for stability , 2011 .

[55]  C. O'Dowd,et al.  Production flux of sea spray aerosol , 2011 .

[56]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  Controls on precipitation and cloudiness in simulations of trade‐wind cumulus as observed during RICO , 2011 .

[57]  Paul N. Edwards,et al.  History of climate modeling , 2011 .

[58]  Jean-Philippe Lafore,et al.  A Density Current Parameterization Coupled with Emanuel’s Convection Scheme. Part I: The Models , 2010 .

[59]  F. Hourdin,et al.  Resolved Versus Parametrized Boundary-Layer Plumes. Part II: Continuous Formulations of Mixing Rates for Mass-Flux Schemes , 2010 .

[60]  J. Bjerknes On the Structure of Moving Cyclones , 2009 .

[61]  E. Hawkins,et al.  The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions , 2009 .

[62]  James C. McWilliams,et al.  Mesoscale to submesoscale transition in the California current system. Part III: Energy balance and flux , 2008 .

[63]  T. Reichler,et al.  How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate? , 2008 .

[64]  A. Holtslag,et al.  An Intercomparison of Large-Eddy Simulations of the Stable Boundary Layer , 2004 .

[65]  J. McManus,et al.  Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes , 2004, Nature.

[66]  Akio Arakawa,et al.  CLOUDS AND CLIMATE: A PROBLEM THAT REFUSES TO DIE. Clouds of many , 2022 .

[67]  K. Speer,et al.  Large-Scale Vertical and Horizontal Circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean , 2003 .

[68]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  A Large Eddy Simulation Intercomparison Study of Shallow Cumulus Convection , 2003 .

[69]  F. Hourdin,et al.  Parameterization of the Dry Convective Boundary Layer Based on a Mass Flux Representation of Thermals , 2002 .

[70]  D. Randall,et al.  A cloud resolving model as a cloud parameterization in the NCAR Community Climate System Model: Preliminary results , 2001 .

[71]  David A. Randall,et al.  Single-Column Models and Cloud Ensemble Models as Links between Observations and Climate Models , 1996 .

[72]  V. Balaji,et al.  Sub-gridscale effects in mesoscale deep convection: Initiation, organization and turbulence , 1996 .

[73]  Detlef Stammer,et al.  Mesoscale Variability in the Atlantic Ocean from Geosat Altimetry and WOCE High-Resolution Numerical Modeling , 1992 .

[74]  W. Broecker,et al.  Origin of the northern Atlantic's Heinrich events , 1992 .

[75]  G. D. Nastrom,et al.  A Climatology of Atmospheric Wavenumber Spectra of Wind and Temperature Observed by Commercial Aircraft , 1985 .

[76]  A. Arakawa,et al.  Interaction of a Cumulus Cloud Ensemble with the Large-Scale Environment, Part I , 1974 .

[77]  Philip W. Anderson,et al.  More Is Different Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science , 1972 .

[78]  J.,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Barotropic Vorticity Equation , 1950 .