ALBERT

Description: We compare coupled nonlinear climate models and their simplified forced counterparts with respect to predictability and phase space topology. Various types of uncertainty plague climate change simulation, which is, in turn, a crucial element of Earth System modelling. Since the currently preferred strategy for simulating the climate system, or the Earth System at large, is the coupling of sub-system modules (representing, e.g. atmosphere, oceans, global vegetation), this paper explicitly addresses the errors and indeterminacies generated by the coupling procedure. The focus is on a comparison of forced dynamics as opposed to fully, i.e. intrinsically, coupled dynamics. The former represents a particular type of simulation, where the time behaviour of one complex systems component is prescribed by data or some other external information source. Such a simplifying technique is often employed in Earth System models in order to save computing resources, in particular when massive model inter-comparisons need to be carried out. Our contribution to the debate is based on the investigation of two representative model examples, namely (i) a low-dimensional coupled atmosphere-ocean simulator, and (ii) a replica-like simulator embracing corresponding components.Whereas in general the forced version (ii) is able to mimic its fully coupled counterpart (i), we show in this paper that for a considerable fraction of parameter- and state-space, the two approaches qualitatively differ. Here we take up a phenomenon concerning the predictability of coupled versus forced models that was reported earlier in this journal: the observation that the time series of the forced version display artificial predictive skill. We present an explanation in terms of nonlinear dynamical theory. In particular we observe an intermittent version of artificial predictive skill, which we call on-off synchronization, and trace it back to the appearance of unstable periodic orbits. We also find it to be governed by a scaling law that allows us to estimate the probability of artificial predictive skill. In addition to artificial predictability we observe artificial bistability for the forced version, which has not been reported so far. The results suggest that bistability and intermittent predictability, when found in a forced model set-up, should always be cross-validated with alternative coupling designs before being taken for granted.

Description: Climate change and its impacts already pose considerable challenges for societies that will further increase with global warming (IPCC, 2014a, b). Uncertainties of the climatic response to greenhouse gas emissions include the potential passing of large-scale tipping points (e.g. Lenton et al., 2008; Levermann et al., 2012; Schellnhuber, 2010) and changes in extreme meteorological events (Field et al., 2012) with complex impacts on societies (Hallegatte et al., 2013). Thus climate change mitigation is considered a necessary societal response for avoiding uncontrollable impacts (Conference of the Parties, 2010). On the other hand, large-scale climate change mitigation itself implies fundamental changes in, for example, the global energy system. The associated challenges come on top of others that derive from equally important ethical imperatives like the fulfilment of increasing food demand that may draw on the same resources. For example, ensuring food security for a growing population may require an expansion of cropland, thereby reducing natural carbon sinks or the area available for bio-energy production. So far, available studies addressing this problem have relied on individual impact models, ignoring uncertainty in crop model and biome model projections. Here, we propose a probabilistic decision framework that allows for an evaluation of agricultural management and mitigation options in a multi-impact-model setting. Based on simulations generated within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), we outline how cross-sectorally consistent multi-model impact simulations could be used to generate the information required for robust decision making. Using an illustrative future land use pattern, we discuss the trade-off between potential gains in crop production and associated losses in natural carbon sinks in the new multiple crop- and biome-model setting. In addition, crop and water model simulations are combined to explore irrigation increases as one possible measure of agricultural intensification that could limit the expansion of cropland required in response to climate change and growing food demand. This example shows that current impact model uncertainties pose an important challenge to long-term mitigation planning and must not be ignored in long-term strategic decision making.

Description: Despite significant progress in climate impact research, the narratives that science can presently piece together of a 2, 3, 4, or 5 °C warmer world remain fragmentary. Here we briefly review past undertakings to characterise comprehensively and quantify climate impacts based on multi-model approaches. We then report on the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), a community-driven effort to compare impact models across sectors and scales systematically, and to quantify the uncertainties along the chain from greenhouse gas emissions and climate input data to the modelling of climate impacts themselves. We show how ISI-MIP and similar efforts can substantially advance the science relevant to impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and we outline the steps that need to be taken in order to make the most of the available modelling tools. We discuss pertinent limitations of these methods and how they could be tackled. We argue that it is time to consolidate the current patchwork of impact knowledge through integrated cross-sectoral assessments, and that the climate impact community is now in a favourable position to do so.

Description: In order to achieve climate change mitigation, long-term decisions are required that must be reconciled with other societal goals that draw on the same resources. For example, ensuring food security for a growing population may require an expansion of crop land, thereby reducing natural carbon sinks or the area available for bio-energy production. Here, we show that current impact-model uncertainties pose an important challenge to long-term mitigation planning and propose a new risk-assessment and decision framework that accounts for competing interests. Based on cross-sectorally consistent simulations generated within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) we discuss potential gains and limitations of additional irrigation and trade-offs of the expansion of agricultural land as two possible response measures to climate change and growing food demand. We describe an illustrative example in which the combination of both measures may close the supply demand gap while leading to a loss of approximately half of all natural carbon sinks. We highlight current limitations of available simulations and additional steps required for a comprehensive risk assessment.

Description: Despite significant progress in climate impacts research, the narratives that science can presently piece together of a 2, 3, 4, or 5 degree warmer world remain fragmentary. Here we briefly review past undertakings to comprehensively characterize and quantify climate impacts based on multi-model approaches. We then report on the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), a community-driven effort to systematically compare impacts models across sectors and scales, and to quantify the uncertainties along the chain from greenhouse gas emissions and climate input data to the modelling of climate impacts themselves. We show how ISI-MIP and similar efforts can substantially advance the science relevant to impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and we outline the steps that need to be taken in order to make the most of available modelling tools. We discuss pertinent limitations of these methods and how they could be tackled. We argue that it is time to consolidate the current patchwork of impacts knowledge through integrated cross-sectoral assessments, and that the climate impacts community is now in a favourable position to do so.