The process of parameter estimation targeting a chosen set of observations is an essential aspect of numerical modeling. This process is usually named tuning in the climate modeling community. In climate models, the variety and complexity of physical processes involved, and their interplay through a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, must be summarized in a series of approximate submodels. Most submodels depend on uncertain parameters. Tuning consists of adjusting the values of these parameters to bring the solution as a whole into line with aspects of the observed climate. Tuning is an essential aspect of climate modeling with its own scientific issues, which is probably not advertised enough outside the community of model developers. Optimization of climate models raises important questions about whether tuning methods a priori constrain the model results in unintended ways that would affect our confidence in climate projections. Here, we present the definition and rationale behind model tuning, review specific methodological aspects, and survey the diversity of tuning approaches used in current climate models. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities in applying so-called objective methods in climate model tuning. We discuss how tuning methodologies may affect fundamental results of climate models, such as climate sensitivity. The article concludes with a series of recommendations to make the process of climate model tuning more transparent.

[1] During a development stage global climate models have their properties adjusted or tuned in various ways to best match the known state of the Earth's climate system. These desired properties are observables, such as the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the global mean temperature, sea ice, clouds and wind fields. The tuning is typically performed by adjusting uncertain, or even non-observable, parameters related to processes not explicitly represented at the model grid resolution. The practice of climate model tuning has seen an increasing level of attention because key model properties, such as climate sensitivity, have been shown to depend on frequently used tuning parameters. Here we provide insights into how climate model tuning is practically done in the case of closing the radiation balance and adjusting the global mean temperature for the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM). We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated.

The Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) is an intercomparison of multiple types of numerical models configured in radiative‐convective equilibrium (RCE). RCE is an idealization of the tropical atmosphere that has long been used to study basic questions in climate science. Here, we employ RCE to investigate the role that clouds and convective activity play in determining cloud feedbacks, climate sensitivity, the state of convective aggregation, and the equilibrium climate. RCEMIP is unique among intercomparisons in its inclusion of a wide range of model types, including atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs), single column models (SCMs), cloud‐resolving models (CRMs), large eddy simulations (LES), and global cloud‐resolving models (GCRMs). The first results are presented from the RCEMIP ensemble of more than 30 models. While there are large differences across the RCEMIP ensemble in the representation of mean profiles of temperature, humidity, and cloudiness, in a majority of models anvil clouds rise, warm, and decrease in area coverage in response to an increase in sea surface temperature (SST). Nearly all models exhibit self‐aggregation in large domains and agree that self‐aggregation acts to dry and warm the troposphere, reduce high cloudiness, and increase cooling to space. The degree of self‐aggregation exhibits no clear tendency with warming. There is a wide range of climate sensitivities, but models with parameterized convection tend to have lower climate sensitivities than models with explicit convection. In models with parameterized convection, aggregated simulations have lower climate sensitivities than unaggregated simulations.

Abstract. We describe Global Atmosphere 7.0 and Global Land 7.0 (GA7.0/GL7.0), the latest science configurations of the Met Office Unified Model (UM) and the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) land surface model developed for use across weather and climate timescales. GA7.0 and GL7.0 include incremental developments and targeted improvements that, between them, address four critical errors identified in previous configurations: excessive precipitation biases over India, warm and moist biases in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL), a source of energy non-conservation in the advection scheme and excessive surface radiation biases over the Southern Ocean. They also include two new parametrisations, namely the UK Chemistry and Aerosol (UKCA) GLOMAP-mode (Global Model of Aerosol Processes) aerosol scheme and the JULES multi-layer snow scheme, which improve the fidelity of the simulation and were required for inclusion in the Global Atmosphere/Global Land configurations ahead of the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). In addition, we describe the GA7.1 branch configuration, which reduces an overly negative anthropogenic aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) in GA7.0 whilst maintaining the quality of simulations of the present-day climate. GA7.1/GL7.0 will form the physical atmosphere/land component in the HadGEM3–GC3.1 and UKESM1 climate model submissions to the CMIP6.

Abstract. We describe Global Atmosphere 7.0 and Global Land 7.0 (GA7.0/GL7.0): the latest science configurations of the Met Office Unified Model and JULES land surface model developed for use across weather and climate timescales. GA7.0 and GL7.0 include incremental developments and targeted improvements that between them address four critical errors identified in previous configurations: excessive precipitation biases over India, warm/moist biases in the tropical tropopause layer, a source of energy non-conservation in the advection scheme and excessive surface radiation biases over the Southern Ocean. They also 5 include two new parametrisations, namely the UKCA Glomap-mode aerosol scheme and the JULES multi-layer snow scheme, which improve the fidelity of the simulation and were required for the coupled climate models and Earth system models that will use these configurations in submissions to CMIP6.In addition, we describe the GA7.1 branch configuration, which reduces an overly negative anthropogenic aerosol effective radiative forcing in GA7.0, whilst maintaining the quality of simulations of the present-day climate. GA7.1/GL7.0 will form 10 the physical atmosphere/land component in the HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1 climate models.