Accuracy, realism and general applicability of European forest models.

Forest models are instrumental for understanding and projecting the impact of climate change on forests. A considerable number of forest models have been developed in the last decades. However, few systematic and comprehensive model comparisons have been performed in Europe that combine an evaluation of modelled carbon and water fluxes and forest structure. We evaluate 13 widely used, state-of-the-art, stand-scale forest models against field measurements of forest structure and eddy-covariance data of carbon and water fluxes over multiple decades across an environmental gradient at nine typical European forest stands. We test the models' performance in three dimensions: accuracy of local predictions (agreement of modelled and observed annual data), realism of environmental responses (agreement of modelled and observed responses of daily gross primary productivity to temperature, radiation and vapour pressure deficit) and general applicability (proportion of European tree species covered). We find that multiple models are available that excel according to our three dimensions of model performance. For the accuracy of local predictions, variables related to forest structure have lower random and systematic errors than annual carbon and water flux variables. Moreover, the multi-model ensemble mean provided overall more realistic daily productivity responses to environmental drivers across all sites than any single individual model. The general applicability of the models is high, as almost all models are currently able to cover Europe's common tree species. We show that forest models complement each other in their response to environmental drivers and that there are several cases in which individual models outperform the model ensemble. Our framework provides a first step to capturing essential differences between forest models that go beyond the most commonly used accuracy of predictions. Overall, this study provides a point of reference for future model work aimed at predicting climate impacts and supporting climate mitigation and adaptation measures in forests.

Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes.

Young generations are severely threatened by climate change.

Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change.

While the physical dimensions of climate change are now routinely assessed through multimodel intercomparisons, projected impacts on the global ocean ecosystem generally rely on individual models with a specific set of assumptions. To address these single-model limitations, we present standardized ensemble projections from six global marine ecosystem models forced with two Earth system models and four emission scenarios with and without fishing. We derive average biomass trends and associated uncertainties across the marine food web. Without fishing, mean global animal biomass decreased by 5% (±4% SD) under low emissions and 17% (±11% SD) under high emissions by 2100, with an average 5% decline for every 1 °C of warming. Projected biomass declines were primarily driven by increasing temperature and decreasing primary production, and were more pronounced at higher trophic levels, a process known as trophic amplification. Fishing did not substantially alter the effects of climate change. Considerable regional variation featured strong biomass increases at high latitudes and decreases at middle to low latitudes, with good model agreement on the direction of change but variable magnitude. Uncertainties due to variations in marine ecosystem and Earth system models were similar. Ensemble projections performed well compared with empirical data, emphasizing the benefits of multimodel inference to project future outcomes. Our results indicate that global ocean animal biomass consistently declines with climate change, and that these impacts are amplified at higher trophic levels. Next steps for model development include dynamic scenarios of fishing, cumulative human impacts, and the effects of management measures on future ocean biomass trends.

State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes.

Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.

Local difference measures between complex networks for dynamical system model evaluation.

A faithful modeling of real-world dynamical systems necessitates model evaluation. A recent promising methodological approach to this problem has been based on complex networks, which in turn have proven useful for the characterization of dynamical systems. In this context, we introduce three local network difference measures and demonstrate their capabilities in the field of climate modeling, where these measures facilitate a spatially explicit model evaluation.Building on a recent study by Feldhoff et al. [8] we comparatively analyze statistical and dynamical regional climate simulations of the South American monsoon system [corrected]. types of climate networks representing different aspects of rainfall dynamics are constructed from the modeled precipitation space-time series. Specifically, we define simple graphs based on positive as well as negative rank correlations between rainfall anomaly time series at different locations, and such based on spatial synchronizations of extreme rain events. An evaluation against respective networks built from daily satellite data provided by the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission 3B42 V7 reveals far greater differences in model performance between network types for a fixed but arbitrary climate model than between climate models for a fixed but arbitrary network type. We identify two sources of uncertainty in this respect. Firstly, climate variability limits fidelity, particularly in the case of the extreme event network; and secondly, larger geographical link lengths render link misplacements more likely, most notably in the case of the anticorrelation network; both contributions are quantified using suitable ensembles of surrogate networks. Our model evaluation approach is applicable to any multidimensional dynamical system and especially our simple graph difference measures are highly versatile as the graphs to be compared may be constructed in whatever way required. Generalizations to directed as well as edge- and node-weighted graphs are discussed.