Abstract
Climate projections by global climate models (GCMs) are subject to considerable and multi-source uncertainties. This study aims to compare the uncertainty in projection of precipitation and temperature extremes between Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 (CMIP5) and phase 6 (CMIP6), using 24 GCMs forced by 3 emission scenarios in each phase of CMIP. In this study, the total uncertainty (T) of climate projections is decomposed into the greenhouse gas emission scenario uncertainty (S, mean inter-scenario variance of the signals over all the models), GCM uncertainty (M, mean inter-model variance of signals over all emission scenarios), and internal climate variability uncertainty (V, variance in noises over all models, emission scenarios, and projection lead times); namely, T = S + M + V. The results of analysis demonstrate that the magnitudes of S, M, and T present similarly increasing trends over the 21st century. The magnitudes of S, M, V, and T in CMIP6 are 0.94–0.96, 1.38–2.07, 1.04–1.69, and 1.20–1.93 times as high as those in CMIP5. Both CMIP5 and CMIP6 exhibit similar spatial variation patterns of uncertainties and similar ranks of contributions from different sources of uncertainties. The uncertainty for precipitation is lower in midlatitudes and parts of the equatorial region, but higher in low latitudes and the polar region. The uncertainty for temperature is higher over land areas than oceans, and higher in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere. For precipitation, T is mainly determined by M and V in the early 21st century, by M and S at the end of the 21st century; and the turning point will appear in the 2070s. For temperature, T is dominated by M in the early 21st century, and by S at the end of the 21st century, with the turning point occuring in the 2060s. The relative contributions of S to T in CMIP6 (12.5%–14.3% for precipitation and 31.6%–36.2% for temperature) are lower than those in CMIP5 (15.1%–17.5% for precipitation and 38.6%–43.8% for temperature). By contrast, the relative contributions of M in CMIP6 (50.6%–59.8% for precipitation and 59.4%–60.3% for temperature) are higher than those in CMIP5 (47.5%–57.9% for precipitation and 51.7%–53.6% for temperature). The higher magnitude and relative contributions of M in CMIP6 indicate larger difference among projections of various GCMs. Therefore, more GCMs are needed to ensure the robustness of climate projections.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguilar, E., T. C. Peterson, P. R. Obando, et al., 2005: Changes in precipitation and temperature extremes in Central America and northern South America, 1961–2003. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 110, D23107, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006119.
Allen, M. R., P. A. Stott, J. F. B. Mitchell, et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/35036559.
Aloysius, N. R., J. Sheffield, J. E. Saiers, et al., 2016: Evaluation of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature in central Africa from CMIP5 climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 121, 130–152, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jd023656.
Blázquez, J., and M. N. Nuñez, 2013: Analysis of uncertainties in future climate projections for South America: comparison of WCRP-CMIP3 and WCRP-CMIP5 models. Climate Dyn., 41, 1039–1056, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1489-7.
Booth, B. B. B., D. Bernie, D. McNeall, et al., 2013: Scenario and modelling uncertainty in global mean temperature change derived from emission-driven global climate models. Earth Syst. Dyn., 4, 95–108, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-95-2013.
Brekke, L. D., M. D. Dettinger, E. P. Maurer, et al., 2008: Significance of model credibility in estimating climate projection distributions for regional hydroclimatological risk assessments. Climatic Change, 89, 371–394, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9388-3.
Cess, R. D., G. L. Potter, J. P. Blanchet, et al., 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 95, 16,601–16,615, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JD095iD10p16601.
Cess, R. D., M. H. Zhang, W. J. Ingram, et al., 1996: Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: An update. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 101, 12,791–12,794, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD00822.
Chen, J., F. P. Brissette, and P. Lucas-Picher, 2016: Transferability of optimally-selected climate models in the quantification of climate change impacts on hydrology. Climate Dyn., 47, 3359–3372, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3030-x.
Chen, Z. M., T. J. Zhou, L. X. Zhang, et al., 2020: Global land monsoon precipitation changes in CMIP6 projections. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086902, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086902.
Chou, M.-D., and M. J. Suarez, 1994: An Efficient Thermal Infrared Radiation Parameterization for Use in General Circulation Models. NASA/TM 104606, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Green-belt, Maryland, 85 pp. Accessed on 5 July 2021, available at https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11417304.
Chu, P.-S., Y. R. Chen, and T. A. Schroeder, 2010: Changes in precipitation extremes in the Hawaiian Islands in a warming climate. J. Climate, 23, 4881–4900, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3484.1.
Colman, R., 2003: A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models. Climate Dyn., 20, 865–873, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0310-z.
Cox, P., and D. Stephenson, 2007: A changing climate for prediction. Science, 317, 207–208, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145956.
Deser, C., A. Phillips, V. Bourdette, et al., 2012a: Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Climate Dyn., 38, 527–546, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x.
Deser, C., R. Knutti, S. Solomon, et al., 2012b: Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nat. Climate Change, 2, 775–779, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1562.
Dobler, C., S. Hagemann, R. L. Wilby, et al., 2012: Quantifying different sources of uncertainty in hydrological projections in an Alpine watershed. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4343–4360, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4343-2012.
Entekhabi, D., and P. S. Eagleson, 1989: Land surface hydrology parameterization for atmospheric general circulation models including subgrid scale spatial variability. J. Climate, 2, 816–831, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1989)002<0816:LSHPFA>2.0.CO;2.
Evin, G., B. Hingray, J. Blanchet, et al., 2019: Partitioning uncertainty components of an incomplete ensemble of climate projections using data augmentation. J. Climate, 32, 2423–2440, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0606.1.
Eyring, V., S. Bony, G. A. Meehl, et al., 2015: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organisation. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 8, 10,539–10,583, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-8-10539-2015.
Fatichi, S., V. Y. Ivanov, A. Paschalis, et al., 2016: Uncertainty partition challenges the predictability of vital details of climate change. Earth’s Future, 4, 240–251, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EF000336.
Fischer, E. M., U. Beyerle, and R. Knutti, 2013: Robust spatially aggregated projections of climate extremes. Nat. Climate Change, 3, 1033–1038, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2051.
Hawkins, E., and R. Sutton, 2009: The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1095–1108, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1.
Hawkins, E., and R. Sutton, 2011: The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Climate Dyn., 37, 407–418, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6.
Herrera-Estrada, J. E., and J. Sheffield, 2017: Uncertainties in future projections of summer droughts and heat waves over the contiguous United States. J. Climate, 30, 6225–6246, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0491.1.
Hewitt, R. J., R. Cremades, D. V. Kovalevsky, et al., 2020: Beyond shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and representative concentration pathways (RCPs): climate policy implementation scenarios for Europe, the US and China. Climate Policy, 21, 434–454, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1852068.
Hingray, B., and M. Saïd, 2014: Partitioning internal variability and model uncertainty components in a multimember multimodel ensemble of climate projections. J. Climate, 27, 6779–6798, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00629.1.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996 pp.
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1535 pp.
Kang, S. M., C. Deser, and L. M. Polvani, 2013: Uncertainty in climate change projections of the Hadley circulation: The role of internal variability. J. Climate, 26, 7541–7554, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00788.1.
Knutson, T. R., F. R. Zeng, and A. T. Wittenberg, 2013: Multimodel assessment of regional surface temperature trends: CMIP3 and CMIP5 twentieth-century simulations. J. Climate, 26, 8709–8743, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00567.1.
Knutti, R., M. R. Allen, P. Friedlingstein, et al., 2008: A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century. J. Climate, 21, 2651–2663, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2119.1.
Lee, M.-H., C.-H. Ho, J. Kim, et al., 2012: Assessment of the changes in extreme vulnerability over East Asia due to global warming. Climatic Change, 113, 301–321, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0345-9.
Lehner, F., C. Deser, N. Maher, et al., 2020: Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6. Earth Syst. Dyn., 11, 491–508, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020.
Lu, J. W., T. J. Zhou, X. Huang, et al., 2020: A comparison of three methods for estimating internal variability of near-surface air temperature. Chinese J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 105–121, doi: https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.1901.18235. (in Chinese)
Meinshausen, M., S. J. Smith, K. Calvin, et al., 2011: The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change, 109, 213, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z.
Moss, R. H., J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, et al., 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747–756, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823.
Nakaegawa, T., A. Kitoh, H. Murakami, et al., 2014: Annual maximum 5-day rainfall total and maximum number of consecutive dry days over Central America and the Caribbean in the late twenty-first century projected by an atmospheric general circulation model with three different horizontal resolutions. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 116, 155–168, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-013-0934-9.
Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, A. Grubler, et al., 2000: Special Reporton Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 pp.
Neumann, M., V. Mues, A. Moreno, et al., 2017: Climate variability drives recent tree mortality in Europe. Glob. Change Biol., 23, 4788–4797, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13724.
O’Neill, B. C., E. Kriegler, K. L. Ebi, et al., 2017: The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 169–180, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.
Olonscheck, D., and D. Notz, 2017: Consistently estimating internal climate variability from climate model simulations. J. Climate, 30, 9555–9573, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0428.1.
Schneider, E. K., and J. L. Kinter III, 1994: An examination of internally generated variability in long climate simulations. Climate Dyn., 10, 181–204, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208987.
Slingo, J. M., K. R. Sperber, J. S. Boyle, et al., 1996: Intraseasonal oscillations in 15 atmospheric general circulation models: results from an AMIP diagnostic subproject. Climate Dyn., 12, 325–357, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00231106.
Stainforth, D. A., M. R. Allen, E. R. Tredger, et al., 2007: Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci., 365, 2145–2161, doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2074.
Stott, P. A., and J. A. Kettleborough, 2002: Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature, 416, 723–726, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/416723a.
Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485–498, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
Tokarska, K. B., M. B. Stolpe, S. Sippel, et al., 2020: Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz9549, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549.
Trenberth, K. E., 2012: Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change. Climatic Change, 115, 283–290, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0441-5.
van Pelt, S. C., J. J. Beersma, T. A. Buishand, et al., 2015: Uncertainty in the future change of extreme precipitation over the Rhine basin: the role of internal climate variability. Climate Dyn., 44, 1789–1800, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2312-4.
van Vuuren, D. P., J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, et al., 2011: The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 109, 5, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.
Wang, H.-M., J. Chen, A. J. Cannon, et al., 2018: Transferability of climate simulation uncertainty to hydrological impacts. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3739–3759, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3739-2018.
Wang, H.-M., J. Chen, C.-Y. Xu, et al., 2020: A framework to quantify the uncertainty contribution of GCMs over multiple sources in hydrological impacts of climate change. Earth’s Future, 8, e2020EF001602, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ef001602.
Wehner, M., 2010: Sources of uncertainty in the extreme value statistics of climate data. Extremes, 13, 205–217, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10687-010-0105-7.
Wood, E. F., D. P. Lettenmaier, and V. G. Zartarian, 1992: A land-surface hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 97, 2717–2728, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/91JD01786.
Xin, X. G., T. W. Wu, J. Zhang, et al., 2020: Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon. Int. J. Climatol., 40, 6423–6440, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6590.
Xu, K., B. B. Xu, J. J. Ju, et al., 2019: Projection and uncertainty of precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 multimodel ensembles over nine major basins in China. Atmos. Res., 226, 122–137, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.04.018.
Yang, X., E. F. Wood, J. Sheffield, et al., 2018: Bias correction of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature for China from CMIP5 models. J. Hydrometeorol., 19, 609–623, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0180.1.
Yao, J. Q., Y. N. Chen, J. Chen, et al., 2020: Intensification of extreme precipitation in arid Central Asia. J. Hydrol., 598, 125760, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125760.
Yip, S., C. A. T. Ferro, D. B. Stephenson, et al., 2011: A simple, coherent framework for partitioning uncertainty in climate predictions. J. Climate, 24, 4634–4643, doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4085.1.
Zelinka, M. D., T. A. Myers, D. T. McCoy, et al., 2020: Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782.
Zhou, T. J., J. W. Lu, W. X. Zhang, et al., 2020a: The sources of uncertainty in the projection of global land monsoon precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088415, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088415.
Zhou, T. J., W. X. Zhang, X. L. Chen, et al., 2020b: The near-term, mid-term and long-term projections of temperature and precipitation changes over the Tibetan Plateau and the sources of uncertainties. J. Meteor. Sci., 40, 697–710. (in Chinese)
Zhuan, M.-J., J. Chen, M.-X. Shen, et al., 2018: Timing of human-induced climate change emergence from internal climate variability for hydrological impact studies. Hydrol. Res., 49, 421–437, doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2018.059.
Zhuan, M. J., J. Chen, C.-Y. Xu, et al., 2019: A method for investigating the relative importance of three components in overall uncertainty of climate projections. Int. J. Climatol., 39, 1853–1871, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5920.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the World Climate Research Program Working Group on Coupled Modeling and that of climate modeling groups for making available their respective climate model outputs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFA0603704), National Natural Science Foundation of China (51779176), and China 111 Project (B18037).
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, S., Chen, J. Uncertainty in Projection of Climate Extremes: A Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6. J Meteorol Res 35, 646–662 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-021-1012-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-021-1012-3