Winter chill is one of the defining characteristics of a location's suitability for the production of many tree crops. We mapped and investigated observed historic and projected future changes in winter chill in California, quantified with two different chilling models (Chilling Hours, Dynamic Model). Based on hourly and daily temperature records, winter chill was modeled for two past temperature scenarios (1950 and 2000), and 18 future scenarios (average conditions during 2041–2060 and 2080–2099 under each of the B1, A1B and A2 IPCC greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, for the CSIRO-MK3, HadCM3 and MIROC climate models). For each scenario, 100 replications of the yearly temperature record were produced, using a stochastic weather generator. We then introduced and mapped a novel climatic statistic, “safe winter chill”, the 10% quantile of the resulting chilling distributions. This metric can be interpreted as the amount of chilling that growers can safely expect under each scenario. Winter chill declined substantially for all emissions scenarios, with the area of safe winter chill for many tree species or cultivars decreasing 50–75% by mid-21^st century, and 90–100% by late century. Both chilling models consistently projected climatic conditions by the middle to end of the 21^st century that will no longer support some of the main tree crops currently grown in California, with the Chilling Hours Model projecting greater changes than the Dynamic Model. The tree crop industry in California will likely need to develop agricultural adaptation measures (e.g. low-chill varieties and dormancy-breaking chemicals) to cope with these projected changes. For some crops, production might no longer be possible.

CGILS—the CFMIP‐GASS Intercomparison of Large Eddy Models (LESs) and single column models (SCMs)—investigates the mechanisms of cloud feedback in SCMs and LESs under idealized climate change perturbation. This paper describes the CGILS results from 15 SCMs and 8 LES models. Three cloud regimes over the subtropical oceans are studied: shallow cumulus, cumulus under stratocumulus, and well‐mixed coastal stratus/stratocumulus. In the stratocumulus and coastal stratus regimes, SCMs without activated shallow convection generally simulated negative cloud feedbacks, while models with active shallow convection generally simulated positive cloud feedbacks. In the shallow cumulus alone regime, this relationship is less clear, likely due to the changes in cloud depth, lateral mixing, and precipitation or a combination of them. The majority of LES models simulated negative cloud feedback in the well‐mixed coastal stratus/stratocumulus regime, and positive feedback in the shallow cumulus and stratocumulus regime. A general framework is provided to interpret SCM results: in a warmer climate, the moistening rate of the cloudy layer associated with the surface‐based turbulence parameterization is enhanced; together with weaker large‐scale subsidence, it causes negative cloud feedback. In contrast, in the warmer climate, the drying rate associated with the shallow convection scheme is enhanced. This causes positive cloud feedback. These mechanisms are summarized as the “NESTS” negative cloud feedback and the “SCOPE” positive cloud feedback (Negative feedback from Surface Turbulence under weaker Subsidence—Shallow Convection PositivE feedback) with the net cloud feedback depending on how the two opposing effects counteract each other. The LES results are consistent with these interpretations.

The second version of Chinese Academy of Sciences Earth System Model (CAS‐ESM 2) is described with emphasis on the development process, strength and weakness, and climate sensitivities in simulations of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) DECK experiments. CAS‐ESM 2 was built as a numerical model to simulate both the physical climate system as well as atmospheric chemistry and carbon cycle. It is a newcomer in the international modeling community to provide sufficiently independent solutions of climate simulations from those of other models. Performances of the model in simulating the basic states of the radiation budget of the atmosphere and ocean, precipitation, circulations, variabilities, and the 20^th Century warming are presented. Model biases and their possible causes are discussed. Strength includes horizontal heat transport in the atmosphere and oceans, vertical profile of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation; weakness includes the double Inter‐Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and stronger amplitude of the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that are also common in many other models. The simulated the 20^th Century warming shares a similar discrepancy with observations as in several other models—less warming in the 1920s and stronger cooling in the 1960s than in observation—at the time when there was a steep increase of anthropogenic aerosols. As a result, the 20^th Century warming is about 60% of the observed warming despite that the model simulated a similar slope of warming trend after 1980 to observation. The model has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.4 K with a positive cloud feedback from the shortwave radiation.