Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-517
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-517
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
12 Mar 2026
| 12 Mar 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
ESD Ideas: Quantifying global and regional contributions to climate change projection uncertainty
Abstract. Hawkins and Sutton (2009) developed a framework to partition total uncertainty in future climate projections into three components: internal variability, model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. Here, we propose an extension of this framework that separates the contributions of global and regional processes. This enables a more physically based interpretation and improved understanding of the origins of projection uncertainty.
How to cite. Bintanja, D., de Vries, H., and van der Wiel, K.: ESD Ideas: Quantifying global and regional contributions to climate change projection uncertainty, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-517, 2026.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Earth System Dynamics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.Download & links
Download & links
- Preprint
(702 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Jun 2026)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-517', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2026 reply
Viewed
Total article views: 922 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 12 Mar 2026)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 607 | 242 | 73 | 922 | 73 | 91 |
- HTML: 607
- PDF: 242
- XML: 73
- Total: 922
- BibTeX: 73
- EndNote: 91
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 916 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 916 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 16 May 2026
Daniëlle Bintanja
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht (IMAU), University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Hylke de Vries
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands
Karin van der Wiel
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands
Short summary
We present a method to separate uncertainties from global and regional climate processes within the Hawkins & Sutton (2009) framework, partitioning sources of uncertainty in future climate projections. This helps interpret sources of uncertainty in future climate projections and informs adaptation planning. Focusing on regional projections reduces total uncertainty, highlighting the value of isolating regional uncertainties when developing regional climate information.
We present a method to separate uncertainties from global and regional climate processes within...
Review of Bintanja et al.
This ideas paper extends the Hawkins & Sutton (2009) uncertainty framework to separate the model response and scenario components into regional and global parts, using a specific case study example of Northern Europe. The analysis is interesting and should be published. Hopefully the authors are considering a more detailed paper highlighting different regions where the separations may behave very differently, and for other variables such as precipitation?
I have some comments which the authors may like to consider:
1) Methodological description - personally I found the description of the methodology slightly confusing and disjointed. In particular lines 38-45 could perhaps be moved later in the discussion rather than breaking the description of what is calculated and shown? Lines 33-37 could be expanded with the further details from later paragraphs about how the uncertainty separation is actually done?
2) Figure 1: (a) The region name could be given in the figure somewhere; (b) Is 'reduced regional projections' the best term for the MGW projections?; (c) Could the authors include the total variance for global processes? I think this would help with the explanation of the new separation; (d) Should the black hatched area be broken into blue and green hatching instead to indicate global model and global scenario components?; (e) Could the regional labels in the final panel say 'regional model' and 'regional scenario' for clarity?
3) line 60 - the authors say 'This global model uncertainty exceeds its regional counterpart at all timescales'. However, looking at the Figure this seems to be true only after ~2035ish and not before?