+ All Categories
Home > Documents > S1 Supplementary Figures S–2

S1 Supplementary Figures S–2

Date post: 01-Jan-2022
Category:
Upload: others
View: 4 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
15
Contents S1 Supplementary Figures S–2 On the use of tail-based coincidence metrics as oppossed to correlations-based metrics ................ S–2 Land-atmosphere coupling in individual seasons and alternative metrics for model evaluation ............. S–3 Is land-atmosphere coupling a model-inherent feature? ................................. S–7 5 Global patterns of land-atmosphere coupling in models and observations ........................ S–9 Bivariate T-ET dependence structure in coupling sensitive regions in the warm season ................. S–10 Is there a link between VAC-diagnosed land-atmosphere coupling and (absolute) precipitation or evapotransiration fluxes? ........................................................ S–13 On constraining model-projected warming by land-atmosphere coupling metrics .................... S–14 10 S2 Supplementary Tables S–15 S–1
Transcript

Contents

S1 Supplementary Figures S–2On the use of tail-based coincidence metrics as oppossed to correlations-based metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–2Land-atmosphere coupling in individual seasons and alternative metrics for model evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–3Is land-atmosphere coupling a model-inherent feature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–75Global patterns of land-atmosphere coupling in models and observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–9Bivariate T-ET dependence structure in coupling sensitive regions in the warm season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–10Is there a link between VAC-diagnosed land-atmosphere coupling and (absolute) precipitation or evapotransiration

fluxes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–13On constraining model-projected warming by land-atmosphere coupling metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S–1410

S2 Supplementary Tables S–15

S–1

S1 Supplementary Figures

On the use of tail-based coincidence metrics as oppossed to correlations-based metrics

CMIP5−Models, CEU−JJA: VACc/VACd

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

01

23

45

Obs.−based, CEU−JJA: VACc/VACd

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

01

23

45

CMIP5−Models, CEU−JJA: VACb/VACa

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

02

46

8

Obs.−based, CEU−JJA: VACb/VACa

Den

sity

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

02

46

8

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

VACb

VA

Cc

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CEU−JJA

CMIP5−modelsObs.Artificial data

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

VACa

VA

Cd ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

CEU−JJA

CMIP5−modelsObs.Artificial data

Figure S1. (Top) Ratio of V ACc/V ACd occurrences in CMIP5 models (left) and observations (right). (Middle) Ratio of V ACb/V ACa

occurrences in CMIP5 models (left) and observations (right). (Bottom) Comparison of V ACb/V ACc occurrences (left) and V ACa/V ACd

occurrences (right) in models, observations and artificial data. More frequent occurrences of V ACc than would be expected in a symmetricdependence structure (as diagnosed e.g. by correlation-based metrics) indicate that the application of coincidences is appropriate.

S–2

Land-atmosphere coupling in individual seasons and alternative metrics for model evaluation

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150

−50

050

Longitude

Latit

ude

DJFMAMJJASON

Figure S2. Definition of “warm season" in this study based on long-term seasonal temperatures in the CRU dataset.

S–3

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACcCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (DJF)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACcCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (MAM)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACcCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (JJA)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACcCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (SON)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACcCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (warm seas.)

0 15 30 45 60 75 90[%] of CMIP5 inside Benchmark range, VACc (warm seas.)

Figure S3. Difference in median V ACc in CMIP5 models and observations in (top left) DJF, (top right) MAM, (middle left) JJA, and (middleright) SON, the warm season (bottom left). (Bottom right) Fraction of models that are within the 5th to 95th percentile of the ensemble ofobservations in the warm season (V ACc).

S–4

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACbCMIP5, median − VACbBenchmark, median (DJF)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACbCMIP5, median − VACbBenchmark, median (MAM)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACbCMIP5, median − VACbBenchmark, median (JJA)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACbCMIP5, median − VACbBenchmark, median (SON)

−0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5VACbCMIP5, median − VACcBenchmark, median (warm seas.)

0 15 30 45 60 75 90[%] of CMIP5 inside Benchmark range, VACb (warm seas.)

Figure S4. Difference in median V ACb in CMIP5 models and observations in (top left) DJF, (top right) MAM, (middle left) JJA, and (middleright) SON, the warm season (bottom left). (Bottom right) Fraction of models that are within the 5th to 95th percentile of the ensemble ofobservations in the warm season (V ACb).

S–5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

VA

Cb

CEUM

AM

−C

MIP

5

MA

M−

Ben

ch.

JJA

−C

MIP

5

JJA

−B

ench

.

SO

N−

CM

IP5

SO

N−

Ben

ch.

●●

●●

DiagnosticLSMReanalysesMedian Diagnostic (LFE)Median LSM (LFE)Median Reanalyses (LFE)LandFluxEVAL−Median

Randomness 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

VA

Cc

CEU

MA

M−

CM

IP5

MA

M−

Ben

ch.

JJA

−C

MIP

5

JJA

−B

ench

.

SO

N−

CM

IP5

SO

N−

Ben

ch.

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●● ●

DiagnosticLSMReanalysesMedian Diagnostic (LFE)Median LSM (LFE)Median Reanalyses (LFE)LandFluxEVAL−Median

Randomness

−1.

0−

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

T−

ET

Cor

rela

tion

CEU

MA

M−

CM

IP5

MA

M−

OB

S

JJA

−C

MIP

5

JJA

−O

BS

SO

N−

CM

IP5

SO

N−

OB

S

●●

●● ●

● ●

DiagnosticLSMReanalysesMedian Diagnostic (LFE)Median LSM (LFE)Median Reanalyses (LFE)LandFluxEVAL−MedianFPAR−gimms

−1.0 −0.6 −0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0(Median) CORR_CMIP5 − CORR_OBS

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ●

Figure S5. Land-atmosphere coupling in Central Europe in CMIP5 models and observations as diagnosed through (top left) V ACb and (topright) V ACc based on 90th percentile thresholds, and (bottom left) the Pearson correlation of T and ET anomalies. (Bottom right) Differencein median Pearson corrrelation in CMIP5 models and observations in the warm season.

S–6

Is land-atmosphere coupling a model-inherent feature?

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

VACc

●●ACCESS1−0●●ACCESS1−3

●●bcc−csm1−1●●bcc−csm1−1−m

● ●CanESM2● ●CCSM4

●●CESM1−BGC● ●CESM1−CAM5

●●CMCC−CESM●●CMCC−CM

●●CMCC−CMS● ●CNRM−CM5

● ●CSIRO−Mk3● ●EC−EARTH

●●FGOALS−g2●●FIO−ESM

●●GFDL−CM3●●GFDL−ESM2G

●●GFDL−ESM2M● ●GISS−E2−H● ●GISS−E2−R

●●HadGEM2−AO●●HadGEM2−CC

● ●HadGEM2−ES●●inmcm4

● ●IPSL−CM5A−LR●●IPSL−CM5A−MR

●●IPSL−CM5B−LR●●MIROC−ESM

●●MIROC−ESM−CHEM● ●MIROC5

● ●MPI−ESM−LR●●MPI−ESM−MR

●●MRI−CGCM3●●MRI−ESM1

●●NorESM1−M●●NorESM1−ME

Benchmark

●● ●●●● ● CEU−JJA

−1.0 −0.6 −0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0Correlation between VACc_present and VACc_future (CMIP5)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

Figure S6. (Top) V ACc occurrences in Central Europe (JJA) in individual models. (Bottom) Correlation between present-day and futureland-atmosphere coupling reveal that occurrences of V ACc are largely model-inherent features.

S–7

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

VACc

●●ACCESS1−0●●ACCESS1−3●●bcc−csm1−1

●●bcc−csm1−1−m● ●CanESM2

● ●CCSM4●●CESM1−BGC

● ●CESM1−CAM5●●CMCC−CESM

●●CMCC−CM●●CMCC−CMS

● ●CNRM−CM5● ●CSIRO−Mk3

● ●EC−EARTH●●FGOALS−g2

● ●FIO−ESM●●GFDL−CM3

●●GFDL−ESM2G●●GFDL−ESM2M

● ●GISS−E2−H● ●GISS−E2−R

●●HadGEM2−AO●●HadGEM2−CC

● ●HadGEM2−ES●●inmcm4

● ●IPSL−CM5A−LR●●IPSL−CM5A−MR

●●IPSL−CM5B−LR●●MIROC−ESM

●●MIROC−ESM−CHEM● ●MIROC5

● ●MPI−ESM−LR● ●MPI−ESM−MR

●●MRI−CGCM3●●MRI−ESM1

●●NorESM1−M●●NorESM1−ME

Benchmark

●● ●●● ● ● CNA−JJA

Figure S7. V ACc occurrences in Central North America (JJA) in individual models.

S–8

Global patterns of land-atmosphere coupling in models and observations

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00VACbCMIP5, median (warm seas.)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00VACbBenchmark, median (warm seas.)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00VACcCMIP5, median (warm seas.)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00VACcBenchmark, median (warm seas.)

Figure S8. Global patterns in land-atmosphere coupling as diagnosed through (top) V ACb and (bottom) V ACc: ensemble medianV ACb/V ACc in CMIP5 models (left) and ensemble median of the observations-based datasets (right).

S–9

Bivariate T-ET dependence structure in coupling sensitive regions in the warm season

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

●● ●●

● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●● ●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CEU−Benchmark

r = 0.46VACb−rate = 54.9%VACc−rate = 14.8%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CEU−CMIP5−original

r = 0.08VACb−rate = 34.6%VACc−rate = 28.4%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CEU−CMIP5−constraint

r = 0.48VACb−rate = 53.3%VACc−rate = 13.4%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

Figure S9. Bivariate kernel density estimates of T-ET relationship in Central Europe in the observations-based benchmarking datasets (Top),the original (middle) and constrained (bottom) CMIP5 ensemble.

S–10

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)Te

mpe

ratu

re, s

tand

ardi

zed

anom

alie

s (1

989−

2005

)

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

● ●

●●

● ●

● ●●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

● ●●

● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

CNA−Benchmark

r = 0.03VACb−rate = 30.4%VACc−rate = 31.3%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

●●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CNA−CMIP5−original

r = −0.34VACb−rate = 17.3%VACc−rate = 47.5%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

CNA−CMIP5−constraint

r = 0.02VACb−rate = 30.3%VACc−rate = 30.3%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

Figure S10. Bivariate kernel density estimates of T-ET relationship in Central North America in the observations-based benchmarkingdatasets (Top), the original (middle) and constrained (bottom) CMIP5 ensemble.

S–11

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)Te

mpe

ratu

re, s

tand

ardi

zed

anom

alie

s (1

989−

2005

)

● ●

●●

● ●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

AMZ−Benchmark

r = 0.29VACb−rate = 39.9%VACc−rate = 18.4%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

AMZ−CMIP5−original

r = −0.11VACb−rate = 23.3%VACc−rate = 36.9%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

ET standardized anomalies (1989−2005)

Tem

pera

ture

, sta

ndar

dize

d an

omal

ies

(198

9−20

05)

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

AMZ−CMIP5−constraint

r = 0.24VACb−rate = 36.8%VACc−rate = 19.6%

VACb−indiv.VACc−indiv.

Figure S11. Bivariate kernel density estimates of T-ET relationship in the Amazon region in the observations-based benchmarking datasets(Top), the original (middle) and constrained (bottom) CMIP5 ensemble.

S–12

Is there a link between VAC-diagnosed land-atmosphere coupling and (absolute) precipitation or evapotransirationfluxes?

−1.0 −0.6 −0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0Correlation between VACc and Precip (CMIP5)

−1.0 −0.6 −0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0Correlation between VACc and ET (CMIP5)

Figure S12. Pearson correlation between (top) V ACc and rainfall, and (bottom) V ACc and evapotranspiration across the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble.

S–13

On constraining model-projected warming by land-atmosphere coupling metrics

−1.0 −0.6 −0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0Correlation, VACc − delta−Tmean−excess

● ● ●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

Figure S13. Correlation between V ACc and the "excess" warming in the warm season (difference between warm season warming andannual mean warming). In boreal regions, the "summer excess warming", is not related to V ACc.

S–14

S2 Supplementary Tables

Table S1. CMIP5 models used for analysis

Model name Variable Ensemble member ScenarioACCESS1-0 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5ACCESS1-3 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5bcc-csm1-1 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5bcc-csm1-1-m T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CanESM2 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CCSM4 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CESM1-BGC T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CESM1-CAM5 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CMCC-CESM T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CMCC-CM T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CMCC-CMS T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CNRM-CM5 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5CSIRO-Mk3 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5EC-EARTH T, ET, TXx r2i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5FGOALS-g2 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5FIO-ESM T, ET r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5GFDL-CM3 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5GFDL-ESM2G T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5GFDL-ESM2M T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5GISS-E2-H T, ET, TXx r6i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5GISS-E2-R T, ET, TXx r6i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5HadGEM2-AO T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5HadGEM2-CC T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5HadGEM2-ES T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5inmcm4 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5IPSL-CM5A-LR T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5IPSL-CM5A-MR T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5IPSL-CM5B-LR T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MIROC-ESM T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MIROC-ESM-CHEM T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MIROC5 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MPI-ESM-LR T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MPI-ESM-MR T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MRI-CGCM3 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5MRI-ESM1 T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5NorESM1-M T, ET, TXx r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5NorESM1-ME T, ET r1i1p1 Historical, RCP8.5

S–15


Recommended