Tier 3 Regional Dashboards

6 figures · 1990–2014 → 2040–2049

Synthesis

IFS-FESOM consistently projects higher climate sensitivity than IFS-NEMO, characterized by stronger Arctic Amplification (+3.6 K vs +2.6 K) and intensified monsoon hydrological cycles, despite diverging cloud feedback mechanisms in the Southern Hemisphere.
The comparison of IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO coupled systems under SSP3-7.0 (2040–2049 vs. 1990–2014) reveals a systematic divergence in climate sensitivity, with IFS-FESOM projecting consistently stronger warming and thermodynamic intensification than IFS-NEMO across all analysed regions. This sensitivity is most pronounced in the Arctic, where IFS-FESOM simulates a +3.58 K increase compared to +2.61 K in IFS-NEMO, driven by winter-dominated feedbacks likely linked to differences in baseline sea-ice states. Similar amplification appears in the Mediterranean 'hotspot,' where IFS-FESOM predicts nearly 60% more warming (+2.19 K) and stronger summer drying than its NEMO counterpart, highlighting how the ocean model discretization (unstructured vs. structured) significantly influences regional atmospheric feedbacks. Hydrological responses are thermodynamically robust but spatially distinct. Both models project widespread increases in Total Column Water Vapour (TCWV) adhering to Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, particularly in monsoon regions; the South Asian and Sahelian domains show TCWV increases exceeding 3.0 kg/m² in the FESOM configuration alongside intensified precipitation. However, structural disagreements emerge in cloud radiative feedbacks. Most notably, the Southern Ocean and South Asian Monsoon regions exhibit opposing signs in Total Cloud Cover change between the two models, suggesting that while the thermodynamic forcing is consistent, the dynamic coupling and boundary layer responses remain highly sensitive to the underlying ocean mean state.

Related diagnostics

sea_ice_extent_and_volume global_mean_surface_temperature_evolution monsoon_circulation_indices

Regional Dashboard: Arctic (>66.5°N)

Regional Dashboard: Arctic (>66.5°N)
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (66.5–90.0°N, -180.0–180.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary high

This dashboard presents a comparative analysis of projected Arctic climate change (>66.5°N) for the 2040–2049 period relative to 1990–2014 using two high-resolution coupled models, IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO. The results demonstrate classic Arctic Amplification signatures, with strong winter warming and hydrological intensification, though the magnitude of change is sensitive to the chosen ocean model component.

Key Findings

  • **Strong Arctic Amplification:** Both models project significant warming (IFS-FESOM: +3.58 K; IFS-NEMO: +2.61 K), primarily driven by winter temperature increases, while summer warming is suppressed.
  • **Ocean Model Sensitivity:** The IFS-FESOM configuration is historically colder (~4–5 K lower in winter) but exhibits a stronger warming response than IFS-NEMO, suggesting higher sensitivity or stronger sea-ice feedbacks in the FESOM implementation.
  • **Hydrological Intensification:** The warming is accompanied by increases in the hydrological cycle, with Total Column Water Vapour increasing by ~1.1–1.4 kg/m² and precipitation rates rising, consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

Spatial Patterns

As the dashboard presents area-averaged statistics for the entire Arctic cap (>66.5°N), specific spatial patterns (e.g., Barents Sea vs. Central Arctic) cannot be resolved. However, the 'Annual Cycle' panel serves as a temporal proxy, revealing a distinct seasonal asymmetry where warming is maximized in the cold season (Jan-Mar, Oct-Dec) and minimized during the summer melt season (Jun-Aug).

Model Agreement

The models agree on the sign of change (warming, moistening) and the seasonal structure of the warming (winter-dominated). However, they disagree on the baseline state and magnitude of change: IFS-NEMO produces a significantly warmer historical Arctic winter than IFS-FESOM. IFS-FESOM predicts a more rapid rate of change, narrowing the temperature gap between the two models in the future scenario.

Physical Interpretation

The seasonal temperature profile is a hallmark of the sea-ice insulation feedback. In winter, reduced sea ice thickness and extent in the future scenario allow increased heat flux from the relatively warm ocean to the cold atmosphere, causing large warming. In summer, temperatures are anchored near the freezing point (0°C/273.15 K) due to the latent heat energy required to melt remaining ice and snow, resulting in minimal sensitivity to radiative forcing during these months. The increase in precipitation and water vapour follows atmospheric warming and increased evaporation from expanded open water areas.

Caveats

  • **Cloud Cover Magnitude:** The reported change in Total Cloud Cover (~0.49/0.41) is labeled with units (0-1). If interpreted as an absolute fraction, a +0.5 increase is physically improbable for a regional mean; this likely represents a relative change, a unit scaling error, or percentage points, which requires clarification.
  • **Observation Period:** The analysis compares a 25-year baseline with a 10-year future slice; decadal internal variability could influence the precise magnitudes of the differences shown.

Regional Dashboard: Mediterranean

Regional Dashboard: Mediterranean
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (30.0–46.0°N, -6.0–36.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary high

This dashboard illustrates mid-century (2040-2049) climate anomalies relative to a 1990-2014 baseline for the Mediterranean region under SSP3-7.0, comparing IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO coupled models. The region projects robust warming and drying, though IFS-FESOM exhibits significantly higher climate sensitivity than IFS-NEMO.

Key Findings

  • IFS-FESOM projects substantially stronger warming (+2.19 K) compared to IFS-NEMO (+1.39 K), a discrepancy of nearly 60% between the two ocean configurations.
  • Both models agree on a drying trend, with precipitation rates decreasing by ~1.5–1.8e-06 kg/m²/s and total cloud cover reducing by ~2.4–2.9 units (likely percentage points).
  • Total Column Water Vapour (TCWV) increases in both models, with IFS-FESOM showing nearly double the moistening (+2.15 kg/m²) of IFS-NEMO (+1.09 kg/m²), consistent with its higher warming.
  • The annual temperature cycle reveals that the warming discrepancy is seasonally amplified, with IFS-FESOM predicting much hotter summers (JJA peak >300 K) than IFS-NEMO.

Spatial Patterns

The analysis is spatially aggregated over the Mediterranean box (30.0–46.0°N, -6.0–36.0°E); however, the results imply a regional amplification of warming characteristic of the Mediterranean 'hotspot', driven by summer drying and reduced cloudiness.

Model Agreement

Models agree on the sign of change for all variables: positive for temperature and water vapour, negative for precipitation and cloud cover. Disagreement lies in magnitude: IFS-FESOM consistently simulates a warmer, moister, and slightly less precip-deficient future compared to IFS-NEMO. The divergence is particularly stark in the summer temperature maximum.

Physical Interpretation

The patterns suggest a classic Mediterranean drying-warming feedback. Reduced precipitation and cloud cover (likely due to a northward shift of storm tracks and Hadley cell expansion) increase surface solar radiation and reduce evaporative cooling, amplifying sensible heating. The larger warming in IFS-FESOM drives a stronger Clausius-Clapeyron response (higher TCWV) compared to IFS-NEMO. The difference in ocean models (unstructured FESOM vs structured NEMO) likely leads to different SST evolutions in the enclosed Mediterranean basin, influencing the overlying atmospheric response.

Caveats

  • The cloud cover unit is labeled '(0-1)' but the magnitude (-2.88) suggests percentage points; strict fractional interpretation would be physically impossible on this scale.
  • The analysis covers a relatively short future slice (10 years), making the results susceptible to decadal internal variability.
  • Precipitation bars are not visible due to scaling differences with other variables; analysis relies on the annotated text values.

Regional Dashboard: North Atlantic

Regional Dashboard: North Atlantic
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (30.0–65.0°N, -80.0–0.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary high

This dashboard analyses climate change projections for the North Atlantic (30–65°N) in the 2040s (SSP3-7.0) relative to a 1990–2014 baseline, comparing IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO coupled models. The region shows robust warming and atmospheric moistening, though the models diverge significantly in the magnitude of these responses and their seasonal characteristics.

Key Findings

  • IFS-FESOM projects stronger regional warming (+2.31 K) compared to IFS-NEMO (+1.63 K).
  • Total Column Water Vapour (TCWV) increases in both models, but IFS-FESOM predicts an increase (+2.03 kg/m²) more than double that of IFS-NEMO (+0.97 kg/m²), suggesting a stronger thermodynamic response.
  • Total Cloud Cover decreases in both simulations (values of -1.58 and -2.04, likely percentage points), with IFS-NEMO projecting the larger reduction despite lower warming.
  • IFS-FESOM exhibits a stronger seasonal temperature cycle (hotter summers, cooler winters) compared to IFS-NEMO, which maintains a more dampened annual cycle in both historical and future periods.
  • Mean precipitation changes are negative but negligible in magnitude (-1.11e-06 and -1.01e-06 kg/m²/s), indicating little change in the area-averaged hydrological output.

Spatial Patterns

N/A (The figure displays regionally averaged statistics and temporal cycles, precluding analysis of intra-regional spatial heterogeneity).

Model Agreement

Models agree on the sign of change for all diagnostics: increasing Temperature and Water Vapour; decreasing Cloud Cover and Precipitation. They disagree on sensitivity: IFS-FESOM is the more sensitive model regarding thermal and moisture response (higher ΔT and ΔTCWV), while IFS-NEMO shows a stronger cloud cover response. There is also a persistent disagreement in the baseline seasonal cycle, with IFS-NEMO being warmer in winter and cooler in summer than IFS-FESOM.

Physical Interpretation

The concurrent rise in Temperature and Water Vapour is consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, though IFS-FESOM's higher moisture increase per degree of warming implies differences in air-sea fluxes or advection. The reduction in cloud cover is consistent with a widening of the subtropical dry zone or a poleward shift of the storm track under SSP3-7.0. The differing seasonal amplitudes suggest the ocean components (FESOM vs. NEMO) handle mixed-layer heat storage and release differently, with NEMO likely having a deeper effective mixed layer or different sea-ice edge interactions dampening the annual cycle.

Caveats

  • The Total Cloud Cover unit is labelled '(0-1)' but the magnitude of change (~-2) implies the values are likely percentage points or scaled by 100, as a change of -1.58 in fraction is physically impossible.
  • The precipitation change is essentially zero in the area average, which likely masks significant spatial redistribution (wet-get-wetter/dry-get-drier patterns) typical of the North Atlantic.
  • The short future analysis window (10 years) relative to the baseline (25 years) may introduce internal variability noise into the difference fields.

Regional Dashboard: Sahel

Regional Dashboard: Sahel
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (10.0–20.0°N, -18.0–40.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary high

The Sahel region (10–20°N) is projected to experience warming, wetting, and increased cloud cover in the 2040s (SSP3-7.0) compared to the historical baseline, with the IFS-FESOM model predicting a consistently stronger response than IFS-NEMO across all variables. The region displays a distinctive amplification of the hydrological cycle.

Key Findings

  • IFS-FESOM projects significantly greater warming (+1.38 K) than IFS-NEMO (+0.96 K), particularly during the pre-monsoon and monsoon months (May–October).
  • Both models indicate an intensification of the hydrological cycle, with increased precipitation (+1.41 to +1.88 × 10⁻⁶ kg/m²/s) and a substantial rise in total column water vapour (+2.34 to +3.39 kg/m²).
  • IFS-FESOM exhibits a larger seasonal temperature amplitude than IFS-NEMO, with cooler winters (~291 K vs ~293.5 K in Jan) but higher peak summer temperatures (~307 K vs ~306 K).

Spatial Patterns

While the figure presents spatially averaged data, the annual cycle reflects the temporal progression of the West African Monsoon. The temperature peak in May/June (pre-monsoon) is followed by a plateau/dip in July–September, consistent with evaporative cooling and cloud shading from monsoon rains. The future warming signal is robust throughout the year but maximizes during the peak heat season in IFS-FESOM.

Model Agreement

The models agree on the sign of change for all four variables (warmer, wetter, moister, cloudier), supporting a robust signal of monsoon intensification. However, they disagree on magnitude: IFS-FESOM is consistently more sensitive, predicting ~40-45% larger changes in temperature and water vapour than IFS-NEMO. This divergence likely stems from differences in ocean coupling (FESOM vs NEMO) affecting Atlantic SSTs and meridional heat gradients.

Physical Interpretation

Thermodynamic constraints (Clausius-Clapeyron) drive the large increase in Total Column Water Vapour (+3.39 kg/m² in FESOM) as temperatures rise. This enhanced atmospheric moisture likely fuels an intensified West African Monsoon (WAM), resulting in the observed concurrent increases in precipitation and cloud cover (wetting trend). The stronger warming in IFS-FESOM drives a stronger moisture/precip feedback loop.

Caveats

  • The ICON model is mentioned in the experiment description but is absent from the figure.
  • The unit label for Total Cloud Cover change is '(0-1)', but the values (1.74, 0.592) suggest the data is likely in percent (%), as a fractional increase >1 is physically impossible.
  • Analysis is limited to a near-term horizon (2040-2049), where internal variability may still influence the mean state compared to longer-term averages.

Regional Dashboard: South Asian Monsoon

Regional Dashboard: South Asian Monsoon
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (5.0–30.0°N, 60.0–100.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary medium

This analysis of the South Asian Monsoon (SAS) region under SSP3-7.0 (2040-2049 vs 1990-2014) shows consistent thermodynamic warming and moistening across IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO, but diverging hydrological responses. While both models project warming (~1.0–1.1 K) and increased water vapour, they disagree significantly on the sign of cloud cover change and the magnitude of precipitation increase.

Key Findings

  • Thermodynamic consistency: Both models project warming (IFS-FESOM: +1.14 K; IFS-NEMO: +0.99 K) and significant increases in Total Column Water Vapour (3.12–3.62 kg/m²).
  • Cloud cover divergence: A striking disagreement exists in Total Cloud Cover (TCC) projections; IFS-FESOM predicts a substantial increase (+0.136), whereas IFS-NEMO predicts a slight decrease (-0.020).
  • Hydrological intensification: Both models show increased precipitation, but IFS-NEMO predicts nearly double the rate increase (2.64e-6 kg/m²/s) compared to IFS-FESOM (1.38e-6 kg/m²/s), inversely related to their cloud cover trends.

Spatial Patterns

While the figure presents spatially aggregated data, the temporal 'Annual Cycle' reveals a preserved monsoon structure: a pre-monsoon thermal peak in May (~302–303 K) followed by cooling during the active monsoon months (June–September). The projected warming is relatively uniform across all months, shifting the entire annual temperature curve upward by ~1 K without altering its phase or shape significantly.

Model Agreement

Models agree on the sign and approximate magnitude of thermodynamic variables (Temperature and Water Vapour). However, they exhibit structural disagreement in the hydrological response; IFS-FESOM is consistently warmer (~1–2 K bias) than IFS-NEMO in absolute terms throughout the historical and future annual cycles. The divergence in cloud cover sign suggests fundamental differences in how the coupled ocean states (FESOM vs NEMO) influence atmospheric stability and cloud formation in the IFS atmosphere.

Physical Interpretation

The increase in Total Column Water Vapour scales with warming (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), driving the potential for increased precipitation in both models. The disagreement in precipitation efficiency versus cloudiness suggests that IFS-FESOM (warmer SSTs) retains more non-precipitating or radiative cloud cover, while IFS-NEMO facilitates a circulation regime that reduces total cloud fraction but enhances precipitation efficiency (intensity). The consistently higher 2m temperatures in IFS-FESOM likely stem from differences in ocean heat uptake or mixing between the unstructured FESOM grid and the NEMO grid.

Caveats

  • The analysis is limited to regional averages, masking potential spatial shifts in the monsoon rain belt (e.g., land vs. ocean precipitation contrasts).
  • The ICON model is mentioned in the system context but is absent from the visual results, limiting the multi-model ensemble spread.
  • Annual aggregation of precipitation rates ($10^{-6}$ kg/m²/s) obscures changes in seasonal monsoon timing or extreme rainfall events.

Regional Dashboard: Southern Ocean

Regional Dashboard: Southern Ocean
Variables avg_2t, avg_tprate, avg_tcwv, avg_tcc
Models ifs-fesom, ifs-nemo
Units K
Baseline 1990-2014
Future 2040-2049
Method Area-averaged over bounding box (-70.0–-50.0°N, -180.0–180.0°E). HealPix equal-area cells.

Summary high

This regional dashboard for the Southern Ocean (50°S–70°S) compares climate change projections (2040–2049 vs 1990–2014) from IFS-FESOM and IFS-NEMO coupled models under SSP3-7.0. While both models agree on thermodynamic warming and moistening, they exhibit a substantial divergence in the cloud cover response and baseline temperature climatology.

Key Findings

  • Opposing cloud cover trends: IFS-FESOM projects a large increase in total cloud cover (+0.267), whereas IFS-NEMO projects a substantial decrease (-0.202).
  • Consistent warming: Both models show surface warming, with IFS-FESOM warming slightly more (+0.97 K) than IFS-NEMO (+0.84 K).
  • Thermodynamic moistening: Both models show increased total column water vapour (TCWV), scaling with the warming (IFS-FESOM: +0.82 kg/m²; IFS-NEMO: +0.55 kg/m²).
  • Baseline temperature bias: IFS-FESOM is consistently warmer (by ~1.5–2.0 K in winter) than IFS-NEMO in the historical baseline, suggesting significantly different sea-ice mean states.

Spatial Patterns

The annual cycle analysis shows the Southern Ocean temperature minimum occurs in August–September and maximum in January–February. The warming signal is present throughout the year in both models. IFS-FESOM exhibits a larger seasonal amplitude difference compared to IFS-NEMO, particularly maintaining a warmer state during the austral winter.

Model Agreement

The models agree on the sign and approximate magnitude of thermodynamic changes (Temperature and Water Vapour) and the negligible increase in precipitation rate (~1.7e-6 kg/m²/s). They disagree fundamentally on the sign of the cloud radiative response (Total Cloud Cover) and the absolute magnitude of the historical surface temperature.

Physical Interpretation

The widespread warming drives an increase in atmospheric moisture capacity (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), seen in the TCWV increase. The higher baseline temperature in IFS-FESOM, particularly in winter (~268 K vs ~266 K for IFS-NEMO), suggests reduced sea-ice cover compared to IFS-NEMO, allowing greater ocean-to-atmosphere heat flux. The drastic divergence in cloud cover suggests different feedback mechanisms: IFS-FESOM likely generates more cloudiness due to increased moisture flux from a more open (ice-free) ocean surface, while IFS-NEMO's cloud reduction implies a different boundary layer stability response or cloud parameterization sensitivity.

Caveats

  • The magnitude of the cloud cover changes (roughly ±0.20 to ±0.26 fraction) is exceptionally large for a regional mean, warranting verification of the diagnostic calculation or variable definition.
  • The analysis is area-averaged, masking potential latitudinal shifts in the storm track or sea-ice edge which drive Southern Ocean variability.