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

Quantifying spatially explicit uncertainty in empirically downscaled climate data

Downscaling and bias-correction contribute considerable uncertainty to local climate projections in CMIP6

Dominant Sources of Uncertainty for Downscaled Climate: A Military Installation Perspective

Uncertainty estimation of machine learning spatial precipitation predictions from satellite data

Generative Diffusion-based Downscaling for Climate

Intercomparison of Machine Learning Methods for Statistical Downscaling: The Case of Daily and Extreme Precipitation

Using a Two-Step Downscaling Method to Assess the Impact of Climate Change on Total Nitrogen Load in a Small Basin

Multi-variable Hard Physical Constraints for Climate Model Downscaling

Evaluating the downscaling uncertainty of hydrometeorological data in snowmelt runoff simulation

Emerging AI-based weather prediction models as downscaling tools

Using Statistical Downscaling to Quantify the Gcm-Related Uncertainty in Regional Climate Change Scenarios: A Case Study of Swedish Precipitation

MetaSD: A Unified Framework for Scalable Downscaling of Meteorological Variables in Diverse Situations

Climate Variable Downscaling with Conditional Normalizing Flows

Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Convective Parameters in an Idealized GCM

Statistical Downscaling via High-Dimensional Distribution Matching with Generative Models

A two-step downscaling method for high-scale super-resolution of daily temperature — a case study of Wei River Basin, China

Machine learning-based spatial downscaling and bias-correction framework for high-resolution temperature forecasting

Deep Ensembles to Improve Uncertainty Quantification of Statistical Downscaling Models under Climate Change Conditions

Statistical‐Physical Adversarial Learning From Data and Models for Downscaling Rainfall Extremes

Empirical Upscaling of Point-scale Soil Moisture Measurements for Spatial Evaluation of Model Simulations and Satellite Retrievals

Dynamical-generative downscaling of climate model ensembles