Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Regional but not global temperature variability underestimated by climate models at supradecadal timescales

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 958–966 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Knowledge of the characteristics of natural climate variability is vital when assessing the range of plausible future climate trajectories in the next decades to centuries. The reliable detection of climate fluctuations on multidecadal to centennial timescales depends on proxy reconstructions and model simulations, as the instrumental record extends back only a few decades in most parts of the world. Systematic comparisons between model-simulated and proxy-based inferences of natural variability, however, often seem contradictory. Locally, simulated temperature variability is consistently smaller on multidecadal and longer timescales than is indicated by proxy-based reconstructions, implying that climate models or proxy interpretations might have deficiencies. In contrast, at global scales, studies found agreement between simulated and proxy reconstructed temperature variations. Here we review the evidence regarding the scale of natural temperature variability during recent millennia. We identify systematic reconstruction deficiencies that may contribute to differing local and global model–proxy agreement but conclude that they are probably insufficient to resolve such discrepancies. Instead, we argue that regional climate variations persisted for longer timescales than climate models simulating past climate states are able to reproduce. This would imply an underestimation of the regional variability on multidecadal and longer timescales and would bias climate projections and attribution studies. Thus, efforts are needed to improve the simulation of natural variability in climate models accompanied by further refining proxy-based inferences of variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Examples of local and global surface temperature variability in models and reconstructions over the 1,000–1,800 CE time span.
Fig. 2: Model–data (dis)agreement on Holocene temperature variability in the literature.
Fig. 3: Local versus global temperature variability and its implied spatial scale.
Fig. 4: Slow variability increases the magnitude of extreme events and decreases their return time in a conceptual time series.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The PAGES 2k palaeotemperature records (PAGES 2k v.2.0.0) are available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/21171. The ensemble of global temperature reconstructions based on the PAGES2k16 data are available through the World Data Service (NOAA) Palaeoclimatology at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/26872 and via Figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4507043. The pollen-based reconstructions are available via PANGEA at https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.930512. The marine proxy data are available via PANGEA at https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.899489. The CMIP5 millennium simulations are available through the Earth System Grid Federation portal at https://esgf-data.dkrz.de. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  2. Degroot, D. et al. Towards a rigorous understanding of societal responses to climate change. Nature 591, 539–550 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V. & Teng, H. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Clim. Dynam. 38, 527–546 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hébert, R., Herzschuh, U. & Laepple, T. Millennial-scale climate variability over land overprinted by ocean temperature fluctuations. Nat. Geosci. 15, 899–905 (2022).

  5. Maher, N., Lehner, F. & Marotzke, J. Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 054014 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hourdin, F. et al. The art and science of climate model tuning. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 589–602 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McKinnon, K. A. & Deser, C. Internal variability and regional climate trends in an observational large ensemble. J. Clim. 31, 6783–6802 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fredriksen, H.-B. & Rypdal, K. Spectral characteristics of instrumental and climate model surface temperatures. J. Clim. 29, 1253–1268 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crowley, T. J. Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science 289, 270–277 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu, F. et al. Climate models can correctly simulate the continuum of global-average temperature variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 8728–8733 (2019).

  11. Fernández-Donado, L. et al. Large-scale temperature response to external forcing in simulations and reconstructions of the last millennium. Clim. Past 9, 393–421 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laepple, T. & Huybers, P. Global and regional variability in marine surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2528–2534 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Parsons, L. A. et al. Temperature and precipitation variance in CMIP5 simulations and paleoclimate records of the last millennium. J. Clim. 30, 8885–8912 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laepple, T. & Huybers, P. Ocean surface temperature variability: large model–data differences at decadal and longer periods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16682–16687 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rehfeld, K., Münch, T., Ho, S. L. & Laepple, T. Global patterns of declining temperature variability from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. Nature 554, 356–359 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Neukom, R. et al. Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nat. Geosci. 12, 643–649 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Black, D. E. et al. An 8-century tropical Atlantic SST record from the Cariaco Basin: baseline variability, twentieth-century warming, and Atlantic hurricane frequency. Paleoceanogr. Palaeoclimatol. 22, PA4204 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ellerhoff, B. & Rehfeld, K. Probing the timescale dependency of local and global variations in surface air temperature from climate simulations and reconstructions of the last millennia. Phys. Rev. E 104, 064136 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Askjær, T. G. et al. Multi-centennial Holocene climate variability in proxy records and transient model simulations. Quat. Sci. Rev. 296, 107801 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheung, A. H. et al. Comparison of low-frequency internal climate variability in CMIP5 models and observations. J. Clim. 30, 4763–4776 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bothe, O., Jungclaus, J. H. & Zanchettin, D. Consistency of the multi-model CMIP5/PMIP3-past1000 ensemble. Clim. Past 9, 2471–2487 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Collins, M., Osborn, T. J., Tett, S. F. B., Briffa, K. R. & Schweingruber, F. H. A comparison of the variability of a climate model with paleotemperature estimates from a network of tree-ring densities. J. Clim. 15, 1497–1515 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ault, T. R., Deser, C., Newman, M. & Emile-Geay, J. Characterizing decadal to centennial variability in the equatorial Pacific during the last millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3450–3456 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bühler, J. C. et al. Comparison of the oxygen isotope signatures in speleothem records and iHadCM3 model simulations for the last millennium. Clim. Past 17, 985–1004 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zorita, E. et al. European temperature records of the past five centuries based on documentary/instrumental information compared to climate simulations. Climatic Change 101, 143–168 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dee, S. G. et al. Improved spectral comparisons of paleoclimate models and observations via proxy system modeling: Implications for multi-decadal variability. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 476, 34–46 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Franke, J., Frank, D., Raible, C. C., Esper, J. & Brönnimann, S. Spectral biases in tree-ring climate proxies. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 360–364 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. PAGES 2k-PMIP3 group. Continental-scale temperature variability in PMIP3 simulations and PAGES 2k regional temperature reconstructions over the past millennium. Clim. Past 11, 1673–1699 (2015).

  30. Evans, M. N., Tolwinski-Ward, S. E., Thompson, D. M. & Anchukaitis, K. J. Applications of proxy system modeling in high resolution paleoclimatology. Quat. Sci. Rev. 76, 16–28 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anchukaitis, K. J. & Smerdon, J. E. Progress and uncertainties in global and hemispheric temperature reconstructions of the Common Era. Quat. Sci. Rev. 286, 107537 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Esper, J., Frank, D. C. & Wilson, R. J. S. Climate reconstructions: low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. Eos 85, 113–120 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kunz, T., Dolman, A. M. & Laepple, T. A spectral approach to estimating the timescale-dependent uncertainty of paleoclimate records – part 1: theoretical concept. Clim. Past 16, 1469–1492 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Christiansen, B. & Ljungqvist, F. C. Challenges and perspectives for large-scale temperature reconstructions of the past two millennia. Rev. Geophys. 55, 40–96 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Osborn, T. J. CLIMATE: the real color of climate change? Science 306, 621–622 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cook, E. R., Briffa, K. R., Meko, D. M., Graybill, D. A. & Funkhouser, G. The ‘segment length curse’ in long tree-ring chronology development for palaeoclimatic studies. Holocene 5, 229–237 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tingley, M. P. & Huybers, P. A Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. part i: development and applications to paleoclimate reconstruction problems. J. Clim. 23, 2759–2781 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moberg, A., Mohammad, R. & Mauritsen, T. Analysis of the Moberg et al. (2005) hemispheric temperature reconstruction. Clim. Dynam. 31, 957–971 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Trouet, V. et al. A 1500-year reconstruction of annual mean temperature for temperate North America on decadal-to-multidecadal time scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024008 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, S.-T. & O’Neil, J. R. Equilibrium and nonequilibrium oxygen isotope effects in synthetic carbonates. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 61, 3461–3475 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Werner, M., Mikolajewicz, U., Heimann, M. & Hoffmann, G. Borehole versus isotope temperatures on Greenland: seasonality does matter. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 723–726 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Müller, P. J., Kirst, G., Ruhland, G., Von Storch, I. & Rosell-Melé, A. Calibration of the alkenone paleotemperature index U37K’ based on core-tops from the eastern South Atlantic and the global ocean (60°N-60°S). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 1757–1772 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Laepple, T. et al. On the similarity and apparent cycles of isotopic variations in East Antarctic snow pits. Cryosphere 12, 169–187 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zuhr, A. M. et al. Age-heterogeneity in marine sediments revealed by three-dimensional high-resolution radiocarbon measurements. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.871902 (2022).

  45. Peeters, F. J. C., Brummer, G.-J. A. & Ganssen, G. The effect of upwelling on the distribution and stable isotope composition of Globigerina bulloides and Globigerinoides ruber (planktic foraminifera) in modern surface waters of the NW Arabian Sea. Glob. Planet. Change 34, 269–291 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Berger, W. H. & Heath, G. R. Vertical mixing in pelagic sediments. J. Mar. Res. 26, 134–143 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Johnsen, S. J. in Isotopes and Impurities in Snow and Ice Publication No. 118, 210–219 (IAHS-AISH, 1977).

  48. Webb, T. Is vegetation in equilibrium with climate? How to interpret late-Quaternary pollen data. Vegetatio 67, 75–91 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mix, A. in North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation Vol. K-3, 111–135 (Geological Society of America, 1987).

  50. Laepple, T. & Huybers, P. Reconciling discrepancies between Uk37 and Mg/Ca reconstructions of Holocene marine temperature variability. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 375, 418–429 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Dee, S. et al. PRYSM: an open-source framework for proxy system modeling, with applications to oxygen-isotope systems. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 7, 1220–1247 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rhines, A. & Huybers, P. Estimation of spectral power laws in time uncertain series of data with application to the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 δ18O record. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 116, D01103 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sigl, M. et al. Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years. Nature 523, 543–549 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. North, G. R., Wang, J. & Genton, M. G. Correlation models for temperature fields. J. Clim. 24, 5850–5862 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Briffa, K. R. Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Clim. 10, 2548–2568 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kunz, T. & Laepple, T. Frequency-dependent estimation of effective spatial degrees of freedom. J. Clim. 34, 7373–7388 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shindell, D. T., Schmidt, G. A., Mann, M. E., Rind, D. & Waple, A. Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum. Science 294, 2149–2152 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bakker, P., Clark, P. U., Golledge, N. R., Schmittner, A. & Weber, M. E. Centennial-scale Holocene climate variations amplified by Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge. Nature 541, 72–76 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Braconnot, P., Zhu, D., Marti, O. & Servonnat, J. Strengths and challenges for transient Mid- to Late Holocene simulations with dynamical vegetation. Clim. Past 15, 997–1024 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hopcroft, P. O. & Valdes, P. J. Paleoclimate-conditioning reveals a North Africa land–atmosphere tipping point. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108783118 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Laguë, M. M., Bonan, G. B. & Swann, A. L. S. Separating the impact of individual land surface properties on the terrestrial surface energy budget in both the coupled and uncoupled land–atmosphere system. J. Clim. 32, 5725–5744 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rypdal, K., Rypdal, M. & Fredriksen, H.-B. Spatiotemporal long-range persistence in Earth’s temperature field: analysis of stochastic–diffusive energy balance models. J. Clim. 28, 8379–8395 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jüling, A., von der Heydt, A. & Dijkstra, H. A. Effects of strongly eddying oceans on multidecadal climate variability in the Community Earth System Model. Ocean Sci. 17, 1251–1271 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rypdal, M. & Rypdal, K. Long-memory effects in linear response models of Earth’s temperature and implications for future global warming. J. Clim. 27, 5240–5258 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sevellec, F. & Drijfhout, S. S. The signal-to-noise paradox for interannual surface atmospheric temperature predictions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 9031–9041 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Strommen, K. & Palmer, T. N. Signal and noise in regime systems: a hypothesis on the predictability of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 145, 147–163 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mann, M. E. et al. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326, 1256–1260 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hargreaves, J. C., Annan, J. D., Ohgaito, R., Paul, A. & Abe-Ouchi, A. Skill and reliability of climate model ensembles at the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene. Clim. Past 9, 811–823 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Weitzel, N., Hense, A. & Ohlwein, C. Combining a pollen and macrofossil synthesis with climate simulations for spatial reconstructions of European climate using Bayesian filtering. Clim. Past 15, 1275–1301 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Blanusa, M. L., López-Zurita, C. J., & Rasp, S. Internal variability plays a dominant role in global climate projections of temperature and precipitation extremes. Climate Dynamics 61, 1931–1945 (2023).

  72. Ionita, M., Dima, M., Nagavciuc, V., Scholz, P. & Lohmann, G. Past megadroughts in central Europe were longer, more severe and less warm than modern droughts. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 61 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Calel, R., Chapman, S. C., Stainforth, D. A. & Watkins, N. W. Temperature variability implies greater economic damages from climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 5028 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schwarzwald, K. & Lenssen, N. The importance of internal climate variability in climate impact projections. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2208095119 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Harrington, L. J., Schleussner, C.-F. & Otto, F. E. L. Quantifying uncertainty in aggregated climate change risk assessments. Nat. Commun. 12, 7140 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Hausfather, Z., Drake, H. F., Abbott, T. & Schmidt, G. A. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085378 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Valdes, P. Built for stability. Nat. Geosci. 4, 414–416 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Klockmann, M., Mikolajewicz, U., Kleppin, H. & Marotzke, J. Coupling of the subpolar gyre and the overturning circulation during abrupt glacial climate transitions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL090361 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Czymzik, M., Muscheler, R. & Brauer, A. Solar modulation of flood frequency in central Europe during spring and summer on interannual to multi-centennial timescales. Clim. Past 12, 799–805 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yan, M. & Liu, J. Physical processes of cooling and mega-drought during the 4.2 ka BP event: results from TraCE-21ka simulations. Clim. Past 15, 265–277 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zscheischler, J. et al. A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 333–347 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Deser, C., Knutti, R., Solomon, S. & Phillips, A. S. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 775–779 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hegerl, G. & Zwiers, F. Use of models in detection and attribution of climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 2, 570–591 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Stott, P. A. et al. Observational constraints on past attributable warming and predictions of future global warming. J. Clim. 19, 3055–3069 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Philip, S. et al. A protocol for probabilistic extreme event attribution analyses. Adv. Stat. Climatol. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 6, 177–203 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. van Oldenborgh, G. J. et al. Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution. Climatic Change 166, 13 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Qasmi, S. & Ribes, A. Reducing uncertainty in local temperature projections. Sci. Adv. 8, eabo6872 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wu, Y. et al. Quantifying the uncertainty sources of future climate projections and narrowing uncertainties with bias correction techniques. Earth Future 10, e2022EF002963 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Bethke, I. et al. Potential volcanic impacts on future climate variability. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 799–805 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Ellerhoff, B. et al. Contrasting state-dependent effects of natural forcing on global and local climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL098335 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Lehner, F. et al. Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6. Earth Syst. Dynam. 11, 491–508 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. McIntyre, A. et al. Seasonal Reconstructions of the Earth’s Surface at the Last Glacial Maximum (Geological Society of America, 1981).

  93. Comboul, M., Emile-Geay, J., Hakim, G. J. & Evans, M. N. Paleoclimate sampling as a sensor placement problem. J. Clim. 28, 7717–7740 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Wörmer, L. et al. Ultra-high-resolution paleoenvironmental records via direct laser-based analysis of lipid biomarkers in sediment core samples. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15669–15674 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Barkan, E. & Luz, B. High precision measurements of 17O/16O and 18O/16O ratios in H2O. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 19, 3737–3742 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Amrhein, D. E., Hakim, G. J. & Parsons, L. A. Quantifying structural uncertainty in paleoclimate data assimilation with an application to the last millennium. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL090485 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Ljungqvist, F. C. et al. Centennial-scale temperature change in last millennium simulations and proxy-based reconstructions. J. Clim. 32, 2441–2482 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Percival, D. B. & Walden, A. T. Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications: Multitaper and Conventional Univariate Techniques (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

  99. Wu, T. et al. Global carbon budgets simulated by the Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model for the last century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 4326–4347 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Gent, P. R. et al. The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Li, L. et al. The flexible global ocean-atmosphere-land system model, grid-point version 2: FGOALS-g2. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 30, 543–560 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Schmidt, G. A. et al. Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 141–184 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Dufresne, J.-L. et al. Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim. Dynam. 40, 2123–2165 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Roeckner, E. et al. Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model. J. Clim. 19, 3771–3791 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Yukimoto, S. et al. A new global climate model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 —model description and basic performance. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn Ser. II 90A, 23–64 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Volodin, E. M. et al. Simulation of the modern climate using the INM-CM48 climate model. Russ. J. Numer. Anal. Math. Model. 33, 367–374 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Hajima, T. et al. Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 2197–2244 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Mauritsen, T. et al. Developments in the MPI‐M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI‐ESM1.2) and its response to increasing CO2. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 998–1038 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Yukimoto, S. et al. The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: description and basic evaluation of the physical component. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn Ser. II 97, 931–965 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken by members of CVAS and 2k Network, working groups of the Past Global Changes (PAGES) Global Research association. This is a contribution to the SPACE ERC, STACY and PALMOD projects. The SPACE ERC project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 716092). STACY has been funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation, project no. 395588486). This work has also been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), through the PalMod project (subprojects 01LP1926B (O.B.), 01LP1926D (M.C.) and 01LP1926C (B.E., P.S. and N.W.)) from the Research for Sustainability initiative (FONA). B.E. is supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation. E.M.-C. was supported by the PARAMOUR project, funded by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique–FNRS and the FWO under the Excellence of Science (EOS) programme (grant no. O0100718F, EOS ID no. 30454083). A.H. was supported by a Legacy Grant from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage. B.M. was supported by LINKA20102 and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation project CEX2018‐000794‐S. The work originated from discussions at the CVAS working group of PAGES at a workshop at the Internationales Wissenschaftsforum Heidelberg, which was funded by a Hengstberger Prize. We thank N. Beech, C. Brierley, F. Gonzalez-Rouco and M. MacPartland for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. This manuscript uses data provided by the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP and PMIP. We thank the research groups for producing and kindly making their model outputs, measurements and palaeoclimate reconstructions available to us. Editorial assistance, in the form of language editing and correction, was provided by XpertScientific Editing and Consulting Services. We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Funds of Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung.

Author information

Author notes

  1. B. Ellerhoff

    Present address: Department Greenhouse gas emission verification, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany

    T. Laepple & R. Hébert

  2. MARUM–Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and Faculty of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    T. Laepple

  3. Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    E. Ziegler, N. Weitzel, B. Ellerhoff & K. Rehfeld

  4. Department of Physics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    E. Ziegler, B. Ellerhoff & K. Rehfeld

  5. Institut für Naturwissenschaften, Geographie und Technik, Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    P. Schoch

  6. Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

    B. Martrat

  7. Institute for Coastal Systems—Analysis and Modelling, Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Geesthacht, Germany

    O. Bothe

  8. Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain

    E. Moreno-Chamarro

  9. Section Meteorology, Institute of Geosciences, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    M. Chevalier

  10. Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, Geopolis, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    M. Chevalier

  11. ARC Centre of Excellence in Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (CABAH), Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    A. Herbert

  12. School of Culture, History and Language, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    A. Herbert

Authors
  1. T. Laepple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Weitzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Hébert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Ellerhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Schoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. Martrat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. O. Bothe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. Moreno-Chamarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Chevalier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. A. Herbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. K. Rehfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.L. led the synthesis and overall analysis; E.Z. coordinated the work. K.R. and T.L. initiated the project through the workshop. R.H. led the writing of the introductory paragraph. E.Z. led the writing on the remainder of the introduction regarding the conflicting evidence in the literature; E.Z., B.M. and P.S. led the literature review; A.H. and all authors contributed to it; B.E. and R.H. produced Fig. 1, P.S. produced Fig. 2. N.W. and T.L. led the writing of the section on reconstruction deficiencies; N.W., E.M.-C. & T.L. led the writing of the section on the consequences for the spatial structure; R.H & T.L. produced Fig. 3. E.Z and B.E. led the writing of the section on the implications for climate projections and attribution efforts; B.E. produced Fig. 4. R.H. led the writing of the concluding section. O.B. provided a critical check of the current literature O.B., N.W., B.E, R.H., E.Z., T.L., K.R., B.M., M.C., reviewed each section in detail. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Laepple.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor(s): James Super, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Spectrum of mean local simulated and reconstructed temperature variability.

As in Fig. 1d of the main text but for the mean local temperature spectrum from CMIP5/CMIP6 simulations and from PAGES2k temperature reconstructions (see Methods and Ref. 19). This shows that local variability reconstructed from instrumentally calibrated annually resolved records displays a similar model-data variability mismatch on supra-decadal time-scales as the example reconstruction (Cariaco) shown in Fig. 1d, or other marine or terrestrial records4,14.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Overview of model-data (dis)agreement in Holocene temperature variability in the literature with explicit references.

As in Fig. 2 of the main text, model-data agreement is grouped according to temporal (x-axis) and spatial scale (y-axis). Each symbol represents a specific study (refs. 4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,2997) and the color-code indicates strength of (dis)agreement. Multiple occurrences in one box can happen when differing results are reported that is depending on reconstruction method or proxy type. Such cases are highlighted with a black border. The number at the bottom right of each box is the number of distinct studies in this box. Dashing of a box indicates only one or two studies for this spatio-temporal scale. Further details can be found in the Methods section.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Local precipitation and local temperature variability show a different temporal scaling.

Local mean spectral estimates from CMIP5/6 precipitation (dark blue) and temperature (brown). Across all models, local precipitation variability shows a flatter (more white) scaling than local temperature variability. This implies that the mismatch between simulated and reconstructed local supra-decadal variability would increase, if the proxies would represent a mix of precipitation and temperature (calibrated to temperature units), as the difference in scaling between proxies and simulated precipitation is even larger than between proxies and simulated temperature.

Source data

Extended Data Table 1 CMIP5/CMIP6 model experiments. The model experiments were used in Figs. 1 and 3 (refs. 99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109)
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1

Full results of the meta-analysis on which Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2 are based together with statements from the original papers that were the basis for assigning them a level of (dis)agreement.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Raw data (.csv files) for each curve in Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Text file with the data relating to Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Raw data (.csv files) for each curve in Fig. 3.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Raw data (.csv files) for each curve in Extended Data Fig. 1.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Raw data (.csv files) for each curve in Extended Data Fig. 3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laepple, T., Ziegler, E., Weitzel, N. et al. Regional but not global temperature variability underestimated by climate models at supradecadal timescales. Nat. Geosci. 16, 958–966 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01299-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01299-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing