the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Climate model Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread (ClimSIPS) for regional applications
Abstract. As the number of models in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) archives increase from generation to generation, there is a pressing need for guidance on how to interpret and best use the abundance of newly available climate information. CMIP6 users seeking to draw conclusions about model agreement must contend with an "ensemble of opportunity" containing similar models that appear under different names. Those who used CMIP5 as a basis for downstream applications must filter through hundreds of new CMIP6 simulations to find several best suited to their region, season, and climate horizon of interest. Here we present methods to address both issues, model dependence and model subselection, to help users previously anchored in CMIP5 to navigate CMIP6. In Part I, we refine a definition of model dependence based on climate output, initially employed in Climate model Weighting by Independence and Performance (ClimWIP), to designate discrete model families within CMIP5/6. We show that the increased presence of model families in CMIP6 bolsters the upper mode of the ensemble's bimodal effective Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) distribution. Accounting for the mismatch in representation between model families and individual model runs shifts the CMIP6 ECS median and 75th percentile down by 0.43 °C, achieving better alignment with CMIP5's ECS distribution.
In Part II, we present a new, cost-function minimization-based approach to model subselection, Climate model Selection by Independence, Performance, and Spread (ClimSIPS), that selects sets of CMIP models based on the relative importance a user ascribes to model independence (as defined in Part I), model performance, and ensemble spread in projected climate outcome. We demonstrate ClimSIPS by selecting sets of three to five models from CMIP5/6 for European applications, evaluating the performance from the agreement with the observed mean climate, and the spread in outcome from the projected midcentury change in surface air temperature and precipitation. To accommodate different use cases, we explore two ways to represent models with multiple members in ClimSIPS, first, by ensemble mean and second, by an individual ensemble member that maximizes midcentury change diversity within CMIP overall. Because different combinations of models are selected by the cost function for different balances of independence, performance, and spread priority, we present all selected subsets in ternary contour "subselection triangles" and guide users with recommendations based on further qualitative independence, performance, and spread standards. In CMIP6, we find that recommended subsets are populated primarily by members of several model families defined in Part I due to an inverse relationship between performance and independence. In CMIP5, recommended subsets feature model combinations used in the European branch of the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (EURO-CORDEX), suggesting the independence, performance, and spread metrics used in ClimSIPS are appropriate for European applications in CMIP6 and beyond.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(32622 KB)
-
Supplement
(19617 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(32622 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(19617 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Apr 2023
The authors describe an approach for analysis of inter-dependence of CMIP climate model simulations, their weighting and sub-selection for different purposes based on desired range of spread, performance and dependency.
The manuscript is well written and fits the scope of GMD. I find the developed methodology innovative and useful.
One of the important findings is that the model performance is rather a “model” characteristic, whereas the spread is more diverse for individual members of an ensemble of the same model. Further, the reduction of the spread of ECS after the family-democracy is taken into account is also a very important conclusion.
Please find below comments that should be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication:
line 234 – 237: I suggest explaining better that the “multi-model ensembles” correspond to “families”, e.g. replacing the word “ensembles” with “families”.
line 260-265: the results of the sensitivity testing are shown somewhere? it should be stated explicitly (e.g. “see below”)
line 270 – 274: I suggest shortly mentioning that the benefit of longer time period is not visible for all models, denoting the contradictory result of EC-EARTH3 models, for which there is still the overlap even for the longer period.
line 294: I suggest adding a note that the concept of fingerprints will be explained further below.
line 546 – 547: why the evolution of SAT over Europe should be representative of the GCM’s ability to simulate correctly the response to aerosol forcing? There are also other factors to be taken into account, so why specifically only the aerosol emissions are mentioned here?
line 608: I recommend to explain a bit the term “pool” – it can be the whole multi-model ensemble or somehow pre-selected subset. The term pops-up suddenly and makes the reader a bit confused.
lines 612-620: the notation "si" should be explained properly, that it denotes individual simulations.
line 875: please add a reference to the proof of the statement “intermember distances within both CMIP ensembles did satisfy metric criteria”. (is it shown somewhere or not shown?)
Part II – a comment on ternary plots and recommended subsets: The ternary plots are definitely useful for the analysis of different selection criteria. An issue, that is not commented on, is that some of the subsets “reside” a large part of the triangle, whereas some other subset have only a small fraction of the triangle. In some cases, the subset minimizes the cost function for only very narrow intervals of the coefficient values. I suggest that it should be discussed, that in the case of the subsets that correspond to a very small fraction, there might be other subsets that have cost function values close to minimum and would maybe satisfy the criteria for a wider interval of the coefficients? Could there be some additional selection criteria that the recommended subsets should minimize the cost function for a larger fraction of the ternary plot? It would make the selection more robust. In some cases, the recommended subsets are represented by only several “points” in the ternary plot (e.g. Fig 8). I believe that it is desirable to recommend subsets that would be useful for as wide range of applications as possible, to make projections used for similar applications physically consistent.
Part II + Discussion and conclusion: Regarding the recommended subsets derived from CMIP5, the ClimSIPS method suggests similar subsets as used in Euro-CORDEX for driving regional climate model simulations over Europe. The authors claim, that this agreement implies, that their method is suitable for choosing subsets for driving RCMs. This implication is questionable, as it is not clear, what exactly was the basis for the choice of Euro-CORDEX driving GCMs from CMIP5. I do not doubt that proposed method is suitable for choosing appropriate subsets from CMIP6, I just do not agree with the comparison to CMIP5 subsets implying the suitability of ClimSIPS. Please, consider modifying the statements appropriately. The argumentation should be based on the nature of ClimSIPS, which is well described in the paper.
Language, copy-edits:
line 85 – Sentence beginning „Initial versions ...“ – the verb is missing in the sentence.
line 149 – „The study, an extension of the work ...“ – the “of” is missing
line 508 – “in” is missing in “For use in cases...”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1520-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Swen Brands, 21 Apr 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Dr. Brands, thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. That you find it almost a review article is a high compliment, especially in comparison to your well-cited studies. We’ve worked to carefully address your review point-by-point (see attached) and feel that it has improved the manuscript. We hope you feel the same.
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2023
This manuscript introduces a method (ClimSIPS) which select subsets of CMIP models based on model independence, model performance and spread. In the second part the authors describe a case study for European summer and winter.
The manuscript fits the scope of GMD and is very helpful by dealing with the large ensemble of CMIP5 and especially CMIP6 models. Additionally, the change of the ECS distribution when considering only one model family member is very interesting. Nevertheless, the manuscript has reached an extreme length and is written very detailed. I am wondering if there are places where the text could be shortened.
Some small comments:
Line 53: Capital letter in the beginning of the sentence: “Modeling centers…”
Line 86/87: A verb is missing in the first part of the sentence.
Figure 1: The quality of the figure is quite bad and difficult to read.
Line 568: Is there a special reason for choosing this reanalyse dataset?
Line 945 and 947: Is this grade of precision of the numbers really needed here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1520-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Thank you for your review! We really appreciate your takeaways from what we agree is a bit of an interminable read. Following your feedback, we’ve made some substantial cuts to the article, listed as follows:
- Moved CMIP5 subselection (Figure 11) to the supplement and removed discussion of EURO-CORDEX as a benchmark from the main text
- Shortened the paragraphs on robustness and model agreement in Section 1.1
- Removed lists of initial condition ensembles used in the construction of the intermember distance metric from the main text
- Shortened discussion of within-model vs. between-model spread masking
- Reworded sentences to be more concise throughout
- Improved mathematical notation and added equations to be more precise with the cost function terms.
In total, we have reduced the length of the paper by several pages, even with additions requested during the review period. We've also included a point-by-point response to your specific comments in the attached document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Apr 2023
The authors describe an approach for analysis of inter-dependence of CMIP climate model simulations, their weighting and sub-selection for different purposes based on desired range of spread, performance and dependency.
The manuscript is well written and fits the scope of GMD. I find the developed methodology innovative and useful.
One of the important findings is that the model performance is rather a “model” characteristic, whereas the spread is more diverse for individual members of an ensemble of the same model. Further, the reduction of the spread of ECS after the family-democracy is taken into account is also a very important conclusion.
Please find below comments that should be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication:
line 234 – 237: I suggest explaining better that the “multi-model ensembles” correspond to “families”, e.g. replacing the word “ensembles” with “families”.
line 260-265: the results of the sensitivity testing are shown somewhere? it should be stated explicitly (e.g. “see below”)
line 270 – 274: I suggest shortly mentioning that the benefit of longer time period is not visible for all models, denoting the contradictory result of EC-EARTH3 models, for which there is still the overlap even for the longer period.
line 294: I suggest adding a note that the concept of fingerprints will be explained further below.
line 546 – 547: why the evolution of SAT over Europe should be representative of the GCM’s ability to simulate correctly the response to aerosol forcing? There are also other factors to be taken into account, so why specifically only the aerosol emissions are mentioned here?
line 608: I recommend to explain a bit the term “pool” – it can be the whole multi-model ensemble or somehow pre-selected subset. The term pops-up suddenly and makes the reader a bit confused.
lines 612-620: the notation "si" should be explained properly, that it denotes individual simulations.
line 875: please add a reference to the proof of the statement “intermember distances within both CMIP ensembles did satisfy metric criteria”. (is it shown somewhere or not shown?)
Part II – a comment on ternary plots and recommended subsets: The ternary plots are definitely useful for the analysis of different selection criteria. An issue, that is not commented on, is that some of the subsets “reside” a large part of the triangle, whereas some other subset have only a small fraction of the triangle. In some cases, the subset minimizes the cost function for only very narrow intervals of the coefficient values. I suggest that it should be discussed, that in the case of the subsets that correspond to a very small fraction, there might be other subsets that have cost function values close to minimum and would maybe satisfy the criteria for a wider interval of the coefficients? Could there be some additional selection criteria that the recommended subsets should minimize the cost function for a larger fraction of the ternary plot? It would make the selection more robust. In some cases, the recommended subsets are represented by only several “points” in the ternary plot (e.g. Fig 8). I believe that it is desirable to recommend subsets that would be useful for as wide range of applications as possible, to make projections used for similar applications physically consistent.
Part II + Discussion and conclusion: Regarding the recommended subsets derived from CMIP5, the ClimSIPS method suggests similar subsets as used in Euro-CORDEX for driving regional climate model simulations over Europe. The authors claim, that this agreement implies, that their method is suitable for choosing subsets for driving RCMs. This implication is questionable, as it is not clear, what exactly was the basis for the choice of Euro-CORDEX driving GCMs from CMIP5. I do not doubt that proposed method is suitable for choosing appropriate subsets from CMIP6, I just do not agree with the comparison to CMIP5 subsets implying the suitability of ClimSIPS. Please, consider modifying the statements appropriately. The argumentation should be based on the nature of ClimSIPS, which is well described in the paper.
Language, copy-edits:
line 85 – Sentence beginning „Initial versions ...“ – the verb is missing in the sentence.
line 149 – „The study, an extension of the work ...“ – the “of” is missing
line 508 – “in” is missing in “For use in cases...”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1520-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Swen Brands, 21 Apr 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Dr. Brands, thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. That you find it almost a review article is a high compliment, especially in comparison to your well-cited studies. We’ve worked to carefully address your review point-by-point (see attached) and feel that it has improved the manuscript. We hope you feel the same.
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1520', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2023
This manuscript introduces a method (ClimSIPS) which select subsets of CMIP models based on model independence, model performance and spread. In the second part the authors describe a case study for European summer and winter.
The manuscript fits the scope of GMD and is very helpful by dealing with the large ensemble of CMIP5 and especially CMIP6 models. Additionally, the change of the ECS distribution when considering only one model family member is very interesting. Nevertheless, the manuscript has reached an extreme length and is written very detailed. I am wondering if there are places where the text could be shortened.
Some small comments:
Line 53: Capital letter in the beginning of the sentence: “Modeling centers…”
Line 86/87: A verb is missing in the first part of the sentence.
Figure 1: The quality of the figure is quite bad and difficult to read.
Line 568: Is there a special reason for choosing this reanalyse dataset?
Line 945 and 947: Is this grade of precision of the numbers really needed here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1520-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Thank you for your review! We really appreciate your takeaways from what we agree is a bit of an interminable read. Following your feedback, we’ve made some substantial cuts to the article, listed as follows:
- Moved CMIP5 subselection (Figure 11) to the supplement and removed discussion of EURO-CORDEX as a benchmark from the main text
- Shortened the paragraphs on robustness and model agreement in Section 1.1
- Removed lists of initial condition ensembles used in the construction of the intermember distance metric from the main text
- Shortened discussion of within-model vs. between-model spread masking
- Reworded sentences to be more concise throughout
- Improved mathematical notation and added equations to be more precise with the cost function terms.
In total, we have reduced the length of the paper by several pages, even with additions requested during the review period. We've also included a point-by-point response to your specific comments in the attached document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Merrifield, 26 Jun 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Predictors for ClimSIPS Anna Merrifield https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000599312
Model code and software
CMIP_subselection (v1.0) Anna Merrifield and Mario Könz https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7492727
ClimSIPS (v1.0.0) Anna Merrifield and Mario Könz https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7668256
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
487 | 280 | 23 | 790 | 60 | 9 | 9 |
- HTML: 487
- PDF: 280
- XML: 23
- Total: 790
- Supplement: 60
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Anna Louise Merrifield
Lukas Brunner
Ruth Lorenz
Vincent Humphrey
Reto Knutti
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(32622 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(19617 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper