Abstract:Parameters in climate models are usually calibrated manually, exploiting only small subsets of the available data. This precludes both optimal calibration and quantification of uncertainties. Traditional Bayesian calibration methods that allow uncertainty quantification are too expensive for climate models; they are also not robust in the presence of internal climate variability. For example, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods typically require model runs and are sensitive to internal variability noise, rendering them infeasible for climate models. Here we demonstrate an approach to model calibration and uncertainty quantification that requires only model runs and can accommodate internal climate variability. The approach consists of three stages: (a) a calibration stage uses variants of ensemble Kalman inversion to calibrate a model by minimizing mismatches between model and data statistics; (b) an emulation stage emulates the parameter‐to‐data map with Gaussian processes (GP), using the model runs in the calibration stage for training; (c) a sampling stage approximates the Bayesian posterior distributions by sampling the GP emulator with MCMC. We demonstrate the feasibility and computational efficiency of this calibrate‐emulate‐sample (CES) approach in a perfect‐model setting. Using an idealized general circulation model, we estimate parameters in a simple convection scheme from synthetic data generated with the model. The CES approach generates probability distributions of the parameters that are good approximations of the Bayesian posteriors, at a fraction of the computational cost usually required to obtain them. Sampling from this approximate posterior allows the generation of climate predictions with quantified parametric uncertainties. Calibrating climate models with available data and quantifying their uncertainties are essential to make climate predictions accurate and actionable. A primary source of uncertainties in climate models comes from representation of small‐scale processes such as moist convection. Parameters in convection schemes and other parameterizations are usually calibrated by hand, using only a small fraction of data that are available. As a result, the calibration process may miss information about the small‐scale processes in question. This paper presents a proof‐of‐concept, in an idealized setting, of how parameters in climate models can be calibrated using a substantial fraction of the available data, and how uncertainties in the parameters can be quantified. We employ a new algorithm, called calibrate‐emulate‐sample (CES), which makes such calibration and uncertainty quantification feasible for computationally expensive climate models. CES reduces the hundreds of thousands of model runs usually required to quantify uncertainties in computer models to hundreds, thereby achieving about a factor 1,000 speedup. It leads to more robust calibration and uncertainty quantification in the presence of noise arising from chaotic variability of the climate system. We show how uncertainties in climate model parameters can be translated into quantified uncertainties of climate predictions through ensemble integrations. We use time averaged climate statistics to calibrate convective parameters and quantify their uncertainties We demonstrate use of the calibrate‐emulate‐sample algorithm to provide efficient calibration and uncertainty quantification Parametric uncertainty in climate predictions is quantified by sampling from the learnt convective parameter distribution We use time averaged climate statistics to calibrate convective parameters and quantify their uncertainties We demonstrate use of the calibrate‐emulate‐sample algorithm to provide efficient calibration and uncertainty quantification Parametric uncertainty in climate predictions is quantified by sampling from the learnt convective parameter distribution

Parameterization in Life Cycle Assessment inventory data: review of current use and the representation of uncertainty

Investigating Dynamic Parameter Importance of a High-Complexity Hydrological Model and Implications for Parameterization

How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies?

Life Cycle Assessment under Uncertainty: A Scoping Review

The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3

Investigating transparency regarding ecoinvent users’ system model choices

Automation of Life Cycle Assessment—A Critical Review of Developments in the Field of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

Estimating Missing Unit Process Data in Life Cycle Assessment Using a Similarity-based Approach.

Tackling uncertainty in life cycle assessments for the built environment: A review

Contribution-based prioritization of LCI database improvements: the most important unit processes in ecoinvent

Effects of Distribution Choice on the Modeling of Life Cycle Inventory Uncertainty: An Assessment on the Ecoinvent v2.2 Database

Life cycle inventories of electricity supply through the lens of data quality: exploring challenges and opportunities

Quantitative approaches in life cycle assessment—part 1—descriptive statistics and factor analysis

Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability

Classification of sources of uncertainties in building LCA

Critical analysis of life cycle inventory datasets for organic crop production systems

Life cycle assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications

The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2

Actionable insights with less data: guiding early building design decisions with streamlined probabilistic life cycle assessment

PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (premise): a streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective Life Cycle Assessment using Integrated Assessment Models

Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Convective Parameters in an Idealized GCM