Earth system models are complex and represent a large number of processes, resulting in a persistent spread across climate projections for a given future scenario. Owing to different model performances against observations and the lack of independence among models, there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal. This Perspective discusses newly developed tools that facilitate a more rapid and comprehensive evaluation of model simulations with observations, process-based emergent constraints that are a promising way to focus evaluation on the observations most relevant to climate projections, and advanced methods for model weighting. These approaches are needed to distil the most credible information on regional climate changes, impacts, and risks for stakeholders and policy-makers.

[1] The past decade has seen significant progress in characterizing uncertainty in environmental systems models, through statistical treatment of incomplete knowledge regarding parameters, model structure, and observational data. Attention has now turned to the issue of model structural adequacy (MSA, a term we prefer over model structure "error"). In reviewing philosophical perspectives from the groundwater, unsaturated zone, terrestrial hydrometeorology, and surface water communities about how to model the terrestrial hydrosphere, we identify several areas where different subcommunities can learn from each other. In this paper, we (a) propose a consistent and systematic "unifying conceptual framework" consisting of five formal steps for comprehensive assessment of MSA; (b) discuss the need for a pluralistic definition of adequacy; (c) investigate how MSA has been addressed in the literature; and (d) identify four important issues that require detailed attention-structured model evaluation, diagnosis of epistemic cause, attention to appropriate model complexity, and a multihypothesis approach to inference. We believe that there exists tremendous scope to collectively improve the scientific fidelity of our models and that the proposed framework can help to overcome barriers to communication. By doing so, we can make better progress toward addressing the question "How can we use data to detect, characterize, and resolve model structural inadequacies?"

The Protocol for the Analysis of Land Surface Models (PALS) Land Surface Model Benchmarking Evaluation Project (PLUMBER) was designed to be a land surface model (LSM) benchmarking intercomparison. Unlike the traditional methods of LSM evaluation or comparison, benchmarking uses a fundamentally different approach in that it sets expectations of performance in a range of metrics a priori-before model simulations are performed. This can lead to very different conclusions about LSM performance. For this study, both simple physically based models and empirical relationships were used as the benchmarks. Simulations were performed with 13 LSMs using atmospheric forcing for 20 sites, and then model performance relative to these benchmarks was examined. Results show that even for commonly used statistical metrics, the LSMs' performance varies considerably when compared to the different benchmarks. All models outperform the simple physically based benchmarks, but for sensible heat flux the LSMs are themselves outperformed by an out-of-sample linear regression against downward shortwave radiation. While moisture information is clearly central to latent heat flux prediction, the LSMs are still outperformed by a three-variable nonlinear regression that uses instantaneous atmospheric humidity and temperature in addition to downward shortwave radiation. These results highlight the limitations of the prevailing paradigm of LSM evaluation that simply compares an LSM to observations and to other LSMs without a mechanism to objectively quantify the expectations of performance. The authors conclude that their results challenge the conceptual view of energy partitioning at the land surface.