• Adv. Atmos. Sci.  2018, Vol. 35 Issue (9): 1101-1113    DOI: 10.1007/s00376-018-7300-x
    Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity
    Susannah M. BURROWS(), Aritra DASGUPTA, Sarah REEHL, Lisa BRAMER, Po-Lun MA, Philip J. RASCH, Yun QIAN
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99354, USA

    Evaluating a climate model's fidelity (ability to simulate observed climate) is a critical step in establishing confidence in the model's suitability for future climate projections, and in tuning climate model parameters. Model developers use their judgement in determining which trade-offs between different aspects of model fidelity are acceptable. However, little is known about the degree of consensus in these evaluations, and whether experts use the same criteria when different scientific objectives are defined. Here, we report on results from a broad community survey studying expert assessments of the relative importance of different output variables when evaluating a global atmospheric model's mean climate. We find that experts adjust their ratings of variable importance in response to the scientific objective, for instance, scientists rate surface wind stress as significantly more important for Southern Ocean climate than for the water cycle in the Asian watershed. There is greater consensus on the importance of certain variables (e.g., shortwave cloud forcing) than others (e.g., aerosol optical depth). We find few differences in expert consensus between respondents with greater or less climate modeling experience, and no statistically significant differences between the responses of climate model developers and users. The concise variable lists and community ratings reported here provide baseline descriptive data on current expert understanding of certain aspects of model evaluation, and can serve as a starting point for further investigation, as well as developing more sophisticated evaluation and scoring criteria with respect to specific scientific objectives.

    Keywords climate      climate model      model evaluation      numerical model skill      expert elicitation     
    Just Accepted Date: 01 June 2018   Issue Date: 20 June 2018
    E-mail this article
    E-mail Alert
    Articles by authors
    Susannah M. BURROWS
    Aritra DASGUPTA
    Sarah REEHL
    Lisa BRAMER
    Po-Lun MA
    Philip J. RASCH
    Yun QIAN
    Cite this article:   
    Susannah M. BURROWS,Aritra DASGUPTA,Sarah REEHL, et al. Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(9): 1101 -1113 .
    URL:     OR
    Ericsson K.,1996: The Road to Expert Performance: Empirical Evidence from the Arts and Sciences,Sports, and Games. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 369 pp.
    [1] Wei HAN,Cunde XIAO,Tingfeng DOU,Minghu DING. Changes in the Proportion of Precipitation Occurring as Rain in Northern Canada during Spring-Summer from 1979-2015[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(9): 1129 -1136 .
    [2] N. FREYCHET,S. SPARROW,S.F. B. TETT,M.J. MINETER,G.C. HEGERL,D.C. H. WALLOM. Impacts of Anthropogenic Forcings and El Niño on Chinese Extreme Temperatures[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(8): 994 -1002 .
    [3] Xiaoxin WANG,Dabang JIANG,Xianmei LANG. Climate Change of 4°C Global Warming above Pre-industrial Levels[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(7): 757 -770 .
    [4] Xiaoning XIE,He ZHANG,Xiaodong LIU,Yiran PENG,Yangang LIU. Role of Microphysical Parameterizations with Droplet Relative Dispersion in IAP AGCM 4.1[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(2): 248 -259 .
    [5] Hoffman H. N. CHEUNG,Noel KEENLYSIDE,Nour-Eddine OMRANI,Wen ZHOU. Remarkable Link between Projected Uncertainties of Arctic Sea-Ice Decline and Winter Eurasian Climate[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(1): 38 -51 .
    [6] Gian A. VILLAMIL-OTERO,Jing ZHANG,Juanxiong HE,Xiangdong ZHANG. Role of Extratropical Cyclones in the Recently Observed Increase in Poleward Moisture Transport into the Arctic Ocean[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(1): 85 -94 .
    [7] Michael KELLEHER,James SCREEN. Atmospheric Precursors of and Response to Anomalous Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP5 Models[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(1): 27 -37 .
    [8] Qi SHU,Fangli QIAO,Zhenya SONG,Yajuan SONG. Link between the Barents Oscillation and Recent Boreal Winter Cooling over the Asian Midlatitudes[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(1): 127 -132 .
    [9] Thomas W. COLLOW,Wanqiu WANG,Arun KUMAR. Simulations of Eurasian Winter Temperature Trends in Coupled and Uncoupled CFSv2[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2018, 35(1): 14 -26 .
    [10] Xiangxiang ZHANG,Yongjiu DAI,Hongzhi CUI,Robert E. DICKINSON,Siguang ZHU,Nan WEI,Binyan YAN,Hua YUAN,Wei SHANGGUAN,Lili WANG,Wenting FU. Evaluating Common Land Model Energy Fluxes Using FLUXNET Data[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(9): 1035 -1046 .
    [11] Sun-Hee SHIN,Ok-Yeon KIM,Dongmin KIM,Myong-In LEE. Cloud Radiative Effects and Changes Simulated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 Models[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(7): 859 -876 .
    [12] Yitian QIAN,Pang-Chi HSU,Chi-Han CHENG. Changes in Surface Energy Partitioning in China over the Past Three Decades[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(5): 635 -649 .
    [13] Bo HAN,Shihua LÜ,Ruiqing LI,Xin WANG,Lin ZHAO,Cailing ZHAO,Danyun WANG,Xianhong MENG. Global Land Surface Climate Analysis Based on the Calculation of a Modified Bowen Ratio[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(5): 663 -678 .
    [14] Paul D. WILLIAMS. Increased Light, Moderate, and Severe Clear-Air Turbulence in Response to Climate Change[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(5): 576 -586 .
    [15] Kaiqing YANG,Dabang JIANG. Interannual Climate Variability Change during the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age in PMIP3 Last Millennium Simulations[J]. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 2017, 34(4): 497 -508 .