the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
From climate projections to trajectory-conditioned local predictions
Abstract. Regional climate projections are usually sharpened by constraining models’ forced responses toward observations, a step that filters out internal variability and works well mainly where the signal-to-noise ratio is high. Here we side-step this limitation with deep learning, treating internal variability not as noise to remove but as part of the future to predict and of the uncertainty to report. A U-Net trained on 290 simulations from 40 CMIP6 Earth System Models maps the 1980 to 2025 evolution of surface air temperature onto decadal-mean monthly climatologies from the 2030s to the 2090s under SSP2-4.5, keeping the forced response and internal variability together. Tested on entirely withheld model families, the forecasts are skilful and empirically calibrated out-of-sample. Within a model's own ensemble, a forecast predicts the future of the specific member it was given more accurately than the futures of that model's other members, a skill that persists to the 2090s, notably over the subpolar North Atlantic, Europe, North America and Southern Ocean. The forecasts also generalise to a next-generation eddy-rich model whose resolved physics lies outside the training distribution, supporting application to real-world data. When applied to observations, the framework reduces uncertainty in global-mean warming similarly to observational constraints, while also providing spatially coherent local predictions. This shows that our deep learning approach can estimate the distribution of future local climate, conditioned on the recent observed trajectory, encompassing uncertainty arising from both forced response and internal variability realisations. This extends observationally constrained projection toward calibrated predictions at the local scale and seasonal resolution where adaptation decisions are made.
- Preprint
(5178 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(495 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5397', Vincent Verjans, 19 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5397', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Oct 2026
“From climate projections to trajectory-conditioned local predictions” examines how a UNet trained on CMIP6-era ESMs can predict decadal averaged gridded surface temperatures out to the end-of-century. The authors demonstrate that the trajectory specific information can be regionally maintained until the end of century, and the reduced uncertainty of global-mean warming for an SSP2-4.5 scenario when applied to observations. Overall this is a very interesting, innovative work and I have a few comments relating to methodology and interpretation of results.
- The LOMFO-CV framework is an innovative way to assess model performance, and I understand the authors choosing only ESMs that are from the same modeling centre as families because it can be difficult to exactly trace shared ESM development. However it is also known that ESMs can still be related, so, as a sensitivity test, I suggest the authors examine how the TC-UNET performance changes when leave-one-out model families are constructed by shared ocean modules e.g. of the ESMs with >5 members what is performance for those that use NEMO vs those that do not. The limitation from assumption of model independence should also addressed in the discussion.
- I think that there is some possibility that 70-80-90 year predictability derives from the TC-UNet learning some indicator of forced change in internal variability e.g. that the current state of the climate tells us something about the onset AMOC slowdown, or Southern ocean warming. The authors hint at this but I would like a more explicit discussion of this potential factor in the results. To frame this discussion, do the authors think that equivalent UNet trained on pre-industrial simulations would skillfully predict 10-90 years ahead within an out-of-sample pre-industrial simulation?Â
- In a similar vein, I think the introduction and perhaps discussion section would benefit from some clarity around how this study fits in with distinction of predictable unforced variability, predictability arising from forced changes to internal variability, as well as consistent language around “low-frequency variability”, “internal variability”, “uncertainty” (in the sense of internal variability being uncertainty), “signal-to-noise” because the projection and prediction literature have slightly different ways of treating these definitions.Â
Â
L40 the forced response can be estimated (see e.g. ForceSMIP) but it there is no ground truth
L40 Replace “strong” with a more descriptive adjective (large fraction? substantial?)
L53-60 Many uses of “this” but it is not specified what “this” is
L62-63 This sentence is verbatim L43-45, I suggest rephrasing
Section 2.1.3 is anomaly per ensemble member within a dataset? Similarly are UNet inputs standardised, and if so, how?
Eqn 7 I think it should be Q_0.95 in the final term
L 263-264 “low predictability imposed by strong internal variability” be clear here (and maybe in the introduction) that internal variability is both signal and noise, and in this case it is noise.
L 275 Specify that grey is not a significant difference (correct?)
Section 3.3 Which fold of the training data is used for the TC-UNet in this situation? Is there any statistical difference in the version trained with/without the MOHC ESMs?
L 400 Could the authors provide a supplementary figure demonstrating the 2030-2040 mean TC-Unet prediction for the LL vs the realized map to support the claim the decadal-scale internal variability that attenuates the forced signal? Why does the TC-UNet miss this specific prediction which should be decadal scale?Â
Figure 8: The results of this figure suggest that some caution must be taken when arguing that learned low resolution model responses translate to high resolution predictability given that the intermediate resolution performance is biased low.Â
Figure 9 please add panel labels and I think the orchid square in the top left should read “errors outside the 5-95% range”
L 469-479ish How does the observed result from Figure 8 for the MM resolution fit in here?
L 539 The unconstrained forecast regions are more numerous than those few regions listed here, including almost the entire Rocky Mountain range, Central Asia, and the Tropical oceans
Figure 11: How does the uncertainty reduction metric compare if the same metric were constructed for the HadGEM-HH simulations? Are there areas that are more or less constrained in the observational estimates than in the high resolution simulation? Essentially should we trust this particular metric?
L 600-605 I think this section would benefit from some more detail on what is driving the enhanced predictability in the North Atlantic because the initialised prediction studies cited largely examine unforced North Atlantic variability (to the extent that the forced response can be known) but the Gu et. al study is examining the forced response of internal variability.
L 606-614 See comment about existing (unknown) ESM interdependencies
L 614-620 Again, how does the medium resolution fit in here, does it matter what is defined as “coarse”, “medium” and “high” resolution? E.g. if I am looking to constrain my single run of a high resolution simulation, should I avoid a medium resolution ensemble to train on to learn a constraint?
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5397-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 291 | 113 | 65 | 469 | 74 | 45 | 66 |
- HTML: 291
- PDF: 113
- XML: 65
- Total: 469
- Supplement: 74
- BibTeX: 45
- EndNote: 66
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find my review as an attached pdf.