Recent coordinated efforts, in which numerous general circulation climate models have been run for a common set of experiments, have produced large datasets of projections of future climate for various scenarios. Those multimodel ensembles sample initial conditions, parameters, and structural uncertainties in the model design, and they have prompted a variety of approaches to quantifying uncertainty in future climate change. International climate change assessments also rely heavily on these models. These assessments often provide equal-weighted averages as best-guess results, assuming that individual model biases will at least partly cancel and that a model average prediction is more likely to be correct than a prediction from a single model based on the result that a multimodel average of present-day climate generally outperforms any individual model. This study outlines the motivation for using multimodel ensembles and discusses various challenges in interpreting them. Among these challenges are that the number of models in these ensembles is usually small, their distribution in the model or parameter space is unclear, and that extreme behavior is often not sampled. Model skill in simulating present-day climate conditions is shown to relate only weakly to the magnitude of predicted change. It is thus unclear by how much the confidence in future projections should increase based on improvements in simulating present-day conditions, a reduction of intermodel spread, or a larger number of models. Averaging model output may further lead to a loss of signal—for example, for precipitation change where the predicted changes are spatially heterogeneous, such that the true expected change is very likely to be larger than suggested by a model average. Last, there is little agreement on metrics to separate “good” and “bad” models, and there is concern that model development, evaluation, and posterior weighting or ranking are all using the same datasets. While the multimodel average appears to still be useful in some situations, these results show that more quantitative methods to evaluate model performance are critical to maximize the value of climate change projections from global models.

Aerosol–cloud interactions (ACIs) are considered to be the most uncertain driver of present-day radiative forcing due to human activities. The nonlinearity of cloud-state changes to aerosol perturbations make it challenging to attribute causality in observed relationships of aerosol radiative forcing. Using correlations to infer causality can be challenging when meteorological variability also drives both aerosol and cloud changes independently. Natural and anthropogenic aerosol perturbations from well-defined sources provide “opportunistic experiments” (also known as natural experiments) to investigate ACI in cases where causality may be more confidently inferred. These perturbations cover a wide range of locations and spatiotemporal scales, including point sources such as volcanic eruptions or industrial sources, plumes from biomass burning or forest fires, and tracks from individual ships or shipping corridors. We review the different experimental conditions and conduct a synthesis of the available satellite datasets and field campaigns to place these opportunistic experiments on a common footing, facilitating new insights and a clearer understanding of key uncertainties in aerosol radiative forcing. Cloud albedo perturbations are strongly sensitive to background meteorological conditions. Strong liquid water path increases due to aerosol perturbations are largely ruled out by averaging across experiments. Opportunistic experiments have significantly improved process-level understanding of ACI, but it remains unclear how reliably the relationships found can be scaled to the global level, thus demonstrating a need for deeper investigation in order to improve assessments of aerosol radiative forcing and climate change.

Air pollution, in particular high concentrations of particulate matter smaller than 1 µm in diameter (PM₁), continues to be a major health problem, and meteorology is known to substantially influence atmospheric PM concentrations. However, the scientific understanding of the ways in which complex interactions of meteorological factors lead to high-pollution episodes is inconclusive. In this study, a novel, data-driven approach based on empirical relationships is used to characterize and better understand the meteorology-driven component of PM₁ variability. A tree-based machine learning model is set up to reproduce concentrations of speciated PM₁ at a suburban site southwest of Paris, France, using meteorological variables as input features. The model is able to capture the majority of occurring variance of mean afternoon total PM₁ concentrations (coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.58), with model performance depending on the individual PM₁ species predicted. Based on the models, an isolation and quantification of individual, season-specific meteorological influences for process understanding at the measurement site is achieved using SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) regression values. Model results suggest that winter pollution episodes are often driven by a combination of shallow mixed layer heights (MLHs), low temperatures, low wind speeds, or inflow from northeastern wind directions. Contributions of MLHs to the winter pollution episodes are quantified to be on average ∼5 µg/m³ for MLHs below <500 m a.g.l. Temperatures below freezing initiate formation processes and increase local emissions related to residential heating, amounting to a contribution to predicted PM₁ concentrations of as much as ∼9 µg/m³. Northeasterly winds are found to contribute ∼5 µg/m³ to predicted PM₁ concentrations (combined effects of u- and v-wind components), by advecting particles from source regions, e.g. central Europe or the Paris region. Meteorological drivers of unusually high PM₁ concentrations in summer are temperatures above ∼25 ^∘C (contributions of up to ∼2.5 µg/m³), dry spells of several days (maximum contributions of ∼1.5 µg/m³), and wind speeds below ∼2 m/s (maximum contributions of ∼3 µg/m³), which cause a lack of dispersion. High-resolution case studies are conducted showing a large variability of processes that can lead to high-pollution episodes. The identification of these meteorological conditions that increase air pollution could help policy makers to adapt policy measures, issue warnings to the public, or assess the effectiveness of air pollution measures.

Global land surface temperature (LST) data derived from satellite-based infrared radiance measurements are highly valuable for various applications in climate research. While in situ validation of satellite LST data sets is a challenging task, it is needed to obtain quantitative information on their accuracy. In the standardised approach to multi-sensor validation presented here for the first time, LST data sets obtained with state-of-the-art retrieval algorithms from several sensors (AATSR, GOES, MODIS, and SEVIRI) are matched spatially and temporally with multiple years of in situ data from globally distributed stations representing various land cover types in a consistent manner. Commonality of treatment is essential for the approach: all satellite data sets are projected to the same spatial grid, and transformed into a common harmonized format, thereby allowing comparison with in situ data to be undertaken with the same methodology and data processing. The large data base of standardised satellite LST provided by the European Space Agency’s GlobTemperature project makes previously difficult to perform LST studies and applications more feasible and easier to implement. The satellite data sets are validated over either three or ten years, depending on data availability. Average accuracies over the whole time span are generally within ±2.0 K during night, and within ± 4.0 K during day. Time series analyses over individual stations reveal seasonal cycles. They stem, depending on the station, from surface anisotropy, topography, or heterogeneous land cover. The results demonstrate the maturity of the LST products, but also highlight the need to carefully consider their temporal and spatial properties when using them for scientific purposes.