Abstract
Climate projection uncertainty can be partitioned into model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty and internal variability. Here, we investigate the different sources of uncertainty in the projected frequencies of daily maximum temperature and precipitation extremes, which are defined as events that exceed the 99.97th percentile. This is done globally using large initial-condition ensembles. For maximum temperature extremes, internal variability that generates deviations about the ensemble average, dominates in the next 2 decades. Around the middle of the twenty-first century model and scenario uncertainty become the dominant contribution in the tropics but internal variability remains dominant in the extra-tropics. Towards the end of the century, model and scenario uncertainty increase to near equal contributions of \(\sim \) 40% each globally with large regional fluctuations. For precipitation extremes, internal variability dominates throughout the twenty-first century, except for some tropical regions, for example, West Africa. In regions where internal variability constitutes the major source of uncertainty, the potential impact of reducing model uncertainty on the signal-to-noise ratio of the climate projection is estimated to be small. We discuss the caveats of the methodology used and impact of our findings for the design of future climate models. The importance of internal variability found here emphasizes that large ensembles are a vital tool for understanding climate projections.









Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
The code is available at https://github.com/MackenzieBlanusa/InternalVariability. All data is available freely in the cloud.
References
Arias P, Bellouin N, Coppola E, et al (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
Cannon AJ, Sobie SR, Murdock TQ (2015) Bias correction of GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: how well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? J Clim 28(17):6938–6959 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/17/jcli-d-14-00754.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of Climate). Accessed 27 July 2022
Deser C, Knutti R, Solomon S et al (2012) Communication of the role of natural variability in future north American climate. Nat Clim Change 2(11):775–779
Deser C, Lehner F, Rodgers KB et al (2020) Insights from earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects. Nat Clim Change 10(4):277–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0731-2, www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0731-2, (number: 4 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group). Accessed 19 May 2022
Döscher R, Acosta M, Alessandri A et al (2022) The EC-Earth3 earth system model for the coupled model intercomparison project 6. Geosci Model Dev 15(7):2973–3020. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2973/2022/. Accessed 14 July 2022
Gervais M, Gyakum JR, Atallah E et al (2014) How well are the distribution and extreme values of daily precipitation over north america represented in the community climate system model? A comparison to reanalysis, satellite, and gridded station data. J Clim 27(14):5219–5239. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00320.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/14/jcli-d-13-00320.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of Climate). Accessed 27 July 2022
Hausfather Z, Marvel K, Schmidt GA et al (2022) Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature 605(7908):26–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2,https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 (bandiera_abtest: a Cg_type: Comment Number: 7908 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject_term: Climate change, Policy, Climate sciences). Accessed 27 July 2022
Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90(8):1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/8/2009bams2607_1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society). Accessed 24 May 2022
Hawkins E, Sutton R (2011) The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Clim Dyn 37(1-2):407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6, https://www.proquest.com/docview/874300071/abstract/41E2758CCFAA4901PQ/1, (num Pages: 407-418 Place: Heidelberg, Netherlands Publisher: Springer Nature B.V). Accessed 26 May 2022
Hegerl GC, Ballinger AP, Booth BBB et al (2021) Toward consistent observational constraints in climate predictions and projections. Front Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.678109
Jacob D, Teichmann C, Sobolowski S et al (2020) Regional climate downscaling over Europe: perspectives from the EURO-CORDEX community. Reg Environ Change 20(2):51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01606-9
Kay JE, Deser C, Phillips A et al (2015) The community earth system model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96(8):1333–1349. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/96/8/bams-d-13-00255.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society). Accessed 19 May 2022
Kendon EJ, Roberts NM, Fosser G, et al (2020) Greater future U.K. winter precipitation increase in new convection-permitting scenarios. J Clim 33(17):7303–7318. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0089.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/17/jcliD200089.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of Climate). Accessed 27 July 2022
Lehner F, Deser C, Maher N et al (2020) Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6. Earth Syst Dyn 11(2):491–508. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020, https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/491/2020/ (publisher: Copernicus GmbH). Accessed 16 May 2022
Maher N, Lehner F, Marotzke J (2020) Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades. Environ Res Lett 15(5):05414. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d02. (publisher: IOP Publishing). Accessed 18 July 2022
Maraun D, Widmann M (2018) Statistical downscaling and bias correction for climate research. Cambridge University Press, https://www.ebooks.com/en-us/book/95946434/statistical-downscaling-and-bias-correction-for-climate-research/douglas-maraun/. Accessed 27 July 2022
Martinez-Villalobos C, Neelin JD (2021) Climate models capture key features of extreme precipitation probabilities across regions. Environ Res Lett 16(2):024017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd351. (publisher: IOP Publishing). Accessed 27 July 2022
Mauritsen T, Bader J, Becker T et al (2019) Developments in the MPI-M earth system model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and its response to increasing CO2. J Adv Model Earth Syst 11(4):998–1038. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400. Accessed 14 July 2022
McKinnon KA, Deser C (2018) Internal variability and regional climate trends in an observational large ensemble. J Clim 31(17):6783–6802. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0901.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/17/jcli-d-17-0901.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of Climate). Accessed 18 July 2022
McKinnon KA, Deser C (2021) The inherent uncertainty of precipitation variability, trends, and extremes due to internal variability, with implications for western U.S. Water Resources. J Clim 34(24):9605–9622. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0251.1, https://ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=aph &AN=153734154 &site=ehost-live (publisher: American Meteorological Society). Accessed 25 July 2022
Müller WA, Jungclaus JH, Mauritsen T et al (2018) A higher-resolution version of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2-HR). J Adv Model Earth Syst 10(7):1383–1413. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001217. Accessed 14 July 2022
Moncrieff MW, Liu C, Bogenschutz P (2017) Simulation, modeling, and dynamically based parameterization of organized tropical convection for global climate models. J Atmos Sci 74(5):1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0166.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/74/5/jas-d-16-0166.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences). Accessed 27 July 2022
Pielke R Jr, Burgess MG, Ritchie J (2022) Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 \(^\circ \)C and 3 \(^\circ \)C of warming by 2100. Environ Res Lett 17(2):024027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf. (publisher: IOP Publishing). Accessed 27 July 2022
Rasmussen DJ, Meinshausen M, Kopp RE (2016) Probability-weighted ensembles of U.S. county-level climate projections for climate risk analysis. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 55(10):2301–2322. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0302.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/55/10/jamc-d-15-0302.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology). Accessed 07 June 2022
Sherwood SC, Webb MJ, Annan JD et al (2020) An assessment of earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Rev Geophys 58(4):e2019RG000,678. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678
Suarez-Gutierrez L, Li C, Müller WA et al (2018) Internal variability in European summer temperatures at 1.5 em \(^\circ \) C and 2 em \(^\circ \)C of global warming. Environ Res Lett 13(6):064026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaba58. (publisher: IOP Publishing). Accessed 07 June 2022
Swart NC, Cole JNS, Kharin VV, et al (2019) The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3). Geosci Model Dev 12(11):4823–4873. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/4823/2019/. Accessed 14 July 2022
Tapiador FJ, Navarro A, Moreno R et al (2020) Regional climate models: 30 years of dynamical downscaling. Atmos Res 235(104):785 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104785, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809519308403. Accessed 27 July 2022
Tatebe H, Ogura T, Nitta T et al (2019) Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6. Geosci Model Dev 12(7):2727–2765. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2727/2019/ (publisher: Copernicus GmbH). Accessed 13 July 2022
Tebaldi C, Debeire K, Eyring V et al (2021) Climate model projections from the scenario model intercomparison project (scenariomip) of cmip6. Earth System Dyn 12(1):253–293. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/253/2021/
Wood RR, Lehner F, Pendergrass AG et al (2021) Changes in precipitation variability across time scales in multiple global climate model large ensembles. Environ Res Lett 16(8):084022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac10dd. (publisher: IOP Publishing). Accessed 18 July 2022
Yeager SG, Danabasoglu G, Rosenbloom NA et al (2018) Predicting near-term changes in the earth system: a large ensemble of initialized decadal prediction simulations using the community earth system model. Bull Am Meteorol So 99(9):1867–1886. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/9/bams-d-17-0098.1.xml (publisher: American) Meteorological Society Section: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Accessed 27 July 2022
Zelinka MD, Myers TA, McCoy DT et al (2020) Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys Res Lett 47(1):e2019GL085,782. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782
Zhang F, Sun YQ, Magnusson L et al (2019) What is the predictability limit of midlatitude weather? J Atmos Sci 76(4):1077–1091. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0269.1, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/76/4/jas-d-18-0269.1.xml (publisher: American Meteorological Society Section: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences). Accessed 21 July 2022
Acknowledgements
We thank V. Balaji, Dave Farnham, Carlos Hoyos, Nicola Maher and R Saravanan for their helpful comments on this project.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MLB led the data analysis and writing. CJL-Z contributed to the model post-processing and plotting. SR conceived the project.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Blanusa, M.L., López-Zurita, C.J. & Rasp, S. Internal variability plays a dominant role in global climate projections of temperature and precipitation extremes. Clim Dyn 61, 1931–1945 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06664-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06664-3


