A generative likelihood framework for high-resolution climate model evaluation
Environmental Data Science Cambridge University Press (CUP) 5 (2026) e20
Abstract:
Abstract Next-generation high-resolution (km-scale) climate models promise unprecedented accuracy in climate projections, but realizing their potential requires robust methods to quantify how well simulations align with real-world observations. Average-based metrics conventionally used for climate model evaluation ignore the physics encoded in the fine-scale structures of km-scale simulations. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel, statistically principled evaluation methodology based on the likelihood function of a generative image model. Our method provides a continuous similarity metric derived from the likelihood distribution of observation and simulation snapshots, which can redefine the evaluation, intercomparison, and parameter tuning of high-resolution climate models. We demonstrate the applicability and interpretability of this method by evaluating convective clouds simulated by two state-of-the-art global km-scale models, using their outgoing infrared radiation fields. This work establishes a scalable pathway toward observation-based evaluation of next-generation climate simulations.No Epoch Like the Present: Robust Climate Emulation Requires Out-of-Distribution Generalisation
(2026)
Epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty quantification in weather and climate models
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society Wiley (2026) e70219
Abstract:
Representing and quantifying uncertainty in physical parameterisations is a central challenge in weather and climate modelling, and approaches are often developed separately for different time‐scales. Here, we introduce a unified framework for analysing uncertainty in parameterisations across weather and climate regimes. Using the Lorenz 1996 system as a testbed for simplified chaotic dynamics, we quantify uncertainties in a subgrid‐scale parameterisation using a Bayesian neural network (BNN). This allows us to disentangle aleatoric uncertainty, arising from internal variability in the training data, and epistemic uncertainties, arising from poorly constrained parameters during training. At runtime, we sample uncertainties in line with stochastic approaches in weather models and perturbed‐parameter methods in climate models. On weather time‐scales, aleatoric uncertainty dominates, underscoring the value of stochastic parameterisations. On longer, climate time‐scales and under changing forcings, accounting for both types of uncertainty is necessary for well‐calibrated ensembles, with epistemic uncertainty widening the range of explored climate states, and aleatoric uncertainty promoting transitions between them. Constraining parameter uncertainty with short simulations reduces epistemic uncertainty and improves long‐term model behaviour under perturbed forcings. This framework links concepts from machine learning with traditional uncertainty quantification in earth system modelling, offering a pathway towards seamless treatment of uncertainty in weather and climate prediction.Corrigendum
Journal of Climate American Meteorological Society 39:10 (2026) 2849-2851
Abstract:
Abstract We correct an error relating to the comparison of precipitation variability in coupled models versus models run with prescribed SSTs (“AMIP models”) and discuss what conclusions to draw from the corrected result.Crowdsourcing the Frontier: Advancing Hybrid Physics‐ML Climate Simulation via a $50,000 Kaggle Competition
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems American Geophysical Union (AGU) 18:5 (2026)