CMIP5 Model Temperature Results in Excel

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I’ve been looking at the surface temperature results from the 42 CMIP5 models used in the IPCC reports. It’s a bit of a game to download them from the outstanding KNMI site. To get around that, I’ve collated them into an Excel workbook so that everyone can investigate them. Here’s the kind of thing that you can do with them …

42 CMIP5 climate models and HadCRUT4

You can see why folks are saying that the models have been going off the rails …

So for your greater scientific pleasure, the model results are in an Excel workbook called “Willis’s Collation CMIP5 Models” (5.8 Mb file) The results are from models running the RCP45 scenario. There are five sheets in the workbook, all of which show the surface air temperature. They are Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Land, and Ocean temperatures. They cover the period from 1861 to 2100, showing monthly results. Enjoy.

Best to all,

w.

[UPDATE] The data in the spreadsheets is 108 individual runs from 42 models. Some models have only one run, while others are the average of two or more runs. I just downloaded the 42 individual runs data. The one-run-per-model data is here in a 1.2 Mb file called “CMIP5 Models Air Temp One Member.xlsx”. -w.

[UPDATE 2] I realized I hadn’t put up the absolute values of the HadCRUT4 data. It’s here, also as an Excel spreadsheet, for the globe, and the northern and southern hemispheres as well.

[UPDATE 3]

For your further amusement, I’ve put the RCP 4.5 forcing results into an Excel workbook here. The data is from IIASA, but they only give it for every 5-10 year span, so I’ve splined it to give annual forcing values.

Best wishes,

w.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
240 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 30, 2014 5:23 am

Regarding my analysis up thread comparing Hadcrut4 and Series 31, one of the best CMIP5 models.
Summary:
In the real world temperatures go up and down. This is also true of Hadcrut4.
In the world of climate models temperatures only go up.

Karl-Heinz Dehner
December 30, 2014 10:25 am

Same for me myself. Maybe this
http://www.zamzar.com/convert/xlsx-to-xls/
is an reliable alternative?

Karl-Heinz Dehner
Reply to  Karl-Heinz Dehner
December 30, 2014 10:50 am

Should be placed above, under
Karl-Heinz Dehner December 29, 2014 at 12:32 pm …
sorry

December 31, 2014 8:28 am

Thanks Willis for your easy-to-use Excel file. Now every layman can choose his favorite climate model. But which is the best of the 42 models? For this I investigated the global air temperature data set ( running 1 yr means, data coverage: 1861 to 2014) I compared the gridded dataset HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.median_ascii.txt (missing data were filled by interpolation) with the 42 CMIP5-models. I used temperatures (in deg C) instead of anomalies. My favorite is series 1, because the mean of the differences between model and data is smallest. (See here). Interestingly, this model doesn’t work not so well for “Air temp Sea” (See here) as for “Air temp Land” (See here) . I hope the climate models will improve in the next year. P.S.You can download a data viewer CMIP5.exe (Windows) for these data sets here .

Karl-Heinz Dehner
December 31, 2014 1:02 pm

Thanks again, Mr Eschenbach, for making the data available!
I´ve downloaded the provided absolute values of the HadCRUT4 data. Fortunately it is an CSV file and not an Excel spreadsheet, so it can easily be processed with R. From this I calculated the average monthly GMTs for the period 1961-1990 which is used by HadCRUT4 as reference period for giving temperature anomalies. Subsequently, I transformed the absolute values in anomalies with respect to the calculated means for the period 1961-1990. However, it turns out that the anomalies calculated this way differ from the HadCRUT4 values, i. e. the medians of its 100 ensemble member realisations.
How could this be explained? Does the provided absolute values correspond to the median of the HadCRUT4 ensemble or its mean or even to a certain member?
Here are my calculated monthly means for the period 1961-1990:
Month GMT average 1961-1990
Jan 12.108
Feb 12.248
Mrz 12.874
Apr 13.859
Mai 14.887
Jun 15.586
Jul 15.867
Aug 15.717
Sep 15.074
Okt 14.084
Nov 13.029
Dez 12.351
Here a comparison of calculated anomalies and HadCRUT4 anomalies ensemble median:
Year Absolute value Calculated anomalie HadCRUT4 median anomalie w.r.t 1961-1990
Jan 2011 12,420 0,312 0,313
Feb 2011 12,579 0,331 0,328
Mrz 2011 13,306 0,432 0,428
Apr 2011 14,348 0,489 0,478
Mai 2011 15,282 0,395 0,383
Jun 2011 16,081 0,495 0,483
Jul 2011 16,379 0,512 0,506
Aug 2011 16,212 0,495 0,487
Sep 2011 15,542 0,468 0,453
Okt 2011 14,558 0,474 0,452
Nov 2011 13,383 0,354 0,344
Dez 2011 12,768 0,417 0,400
Jan 2012 12,417 0,309 0,303
Feb 2012 12,547 0,299 0,295
Mrz 2012 13,235 0,361 0,357
Apr 2012 14,456 0,597 0,575
Mai 2012 15,484 0,597 0,572
Jun 2012 16,165 0,579 0,553
Jul 2012 16,387 0,520 0,503
Aug 2012 16,258 0,541 0,533
Sep 2012 15,640 0,566 0,550
Okt 2012 14,653 0,569 0,553
Nov 2012 13,591 0,562 0,547
Dez 2012 12,623 0,272 0,271
Jan 2013 12,552 0,444 0,440
Feb 2013 12,731 0,483 0,476
Mrz 2013 13,263 0,389 0,385
Apr 2013 14,303 0,444 0,435
Mai 2013 15,431 0,544 0,520
Jun 2013 16,090 0,504 0,481
Jul 2013 16,392 0,525 0,516
Aug 2013 16,265 0,548 0,529
Sep 2013 15,618 0,544 0,529
Okt 2013 14,594 0,510 0,485
Nov 2013 13,688 0,659 0,628
Dez 2013 12,874 0,523 0,506
With best wishes for a prosperous 2015,
Karl-Heinz Dehner

January 1, 2015 5:52 am

Paul Berberich says: “My favorite is series 1, because the mean of the differences between model and data is smallest.”
That series is not my favorite since it runs too cool up to 2005 (history) and too hot afterwards (projections). While the mean of differences may be as you say, it is achieved by offsetting overcooling and overwarming. Its correlation is not as strong as others, and it doesn’t compare well with UAH from 1979 to 2014 (Series 1 decadal rate is +0.25, UAH rate is +0.14).
I am looking into Series 24 and 27 due to their correlations with HADCRUT4 being the highest, and since they come closest to matching HADCRUT4 absolute temperatures. Strangely most of the series generate absolute temperatures from 1 to 2 degrees K less than HADCRUT4.

quaesoveritas
Reply to  Ron C.
January 1, 2015 9:02 am

When comparing AR4 projections I found Mean Absolute Deviations more useful than mean differences because positive and negative deviations don’t cancel each other out.

January 3, 2015 8:10 am

We were able to analyze the temperature estimates of CMIP5 models and compare them with HADCRUT4 (1850 to 2014), as well as UAH (1979 to 2014). The models estimate global mean temperatures (GMT) backwards from 2005 to 1861 and forwards from 2006 to 2101.
Bottom Line:
In the real world, temperatures go up and down. This is also true of HADCRUT4.
In the world of climate models, temperatures only go up. Some variation in rates of warming, but always warming, nonetheless.
The best of the 42 models according to the tests I applied was Series 31. Here it is compared to HADCRUT4, showing decadal rates in degrees C periods defined by generally accepted change points.
Periods HADCRUT4 SERIES 31 31 MINUS HADCRUT4
1850-1878 0.035 0.036 0.001
1878-1915 -0.052 -0.011 0.041
1915-1944 0.143 0.099 -0.044
1944-1976 -0.040 0.056 0.096
1976-1998 0.194 0.098 -0.096
1998-2013 0.053 0.125 0.072
1850-2014 0.049 0.052 0.003
In contrast with Series 31, the other 41 models typically match the historical warming rate of 0.05C by accelerating warming from 1976 onward and projecting it into the future. For example, while UAH shows warming of 0.14/decade from 1979-2014, CMIP5 models estimates avaerage 0.215/decade, ranging from 0.088 to 0.324/decade.
For the next future climate period, 2006-2035, CMIP5 models project an average warming of 0.2C/decade, ranging from 0.97 to 0.375/decade.
The longer the plateau continues, the more overheated are these projections by the models.

QV
January 6, 2015 10:57 am

I noticed that the data in the first spreadsheet (108 individual runs) produces a higher projected temperature than the second spreadsheet (one run per model).
Does anyone know on what basis the single runs were chosen?
Does the single run version have any status in AR5?