Supplementary information

Implications of regional improvement in global

climate models for agricultural impacts research

Julian Ramirez-Villegas1, 2, 3, Andrew J. Challinor2. 3, Philip K. Thornton1, 4, and Andy Jarvis1, 2

1
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia
2
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
3
Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science (ICAS), School of Earth and Environment, University of
Leeds, Leeds, UK
4
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya

Email: j.r.villegas@cgiar.org

Contents
 Table S1 List of CMIP3 GCMs
 Table S2 List of CMIP5 GCMs
 Table S3 List of studies investigating sensitivity of cropping systems
 Figure S1 Overview of the CMIP5 climate model ensemble horizontal resolution
 Figure S2 Variation in RMSE in 70 CMIP5 simulations for EAF and SAF (same as Fig. 2 in
main text but for the remainder of regions).
 Figure S3 Variation in RMSEM in 70 CMIP5 simulations
 Figure S4 Variation in RMSESD in 70 CMIP5 simulations
 Figure S5 Variation in RMSE in 24 CMIP3 simulations
 Figure S6 Variation in RMSEM in 24 CMIP3 simulations
 Figure S7 Variation in RMSESD in 24 CMIP3 simulations
 Figure S8 Map of interannual variability index for both CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles
 Figure S9 Improvement in skill of simulated climatological seasonal diurnal temperature
range
 Figure S10 Improvement in skill of simulated climatological seasonal precipitation
 Figure S11 Improvement in skill of simulated interannual variability
 Figure S12 Regional differences in seasonal model skill and gains in model skill for seasonal
diurnal temperature range
 Figure S13 Summarized skill of CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs
 Supplementary references
 Table S1 Available CMIP3 GCMs, resolutions, and main references
Model Country Atmosphere Ocean Ref.
BCCR-BCM2.0 Norway T63, L31 1.5x0.5, L35 (1)
CCCMA-CGCM3.1 (T47) Canada T47 (3.75x3.75), L31 1.85x1.85, L29 (2)
CCCMA-CGCM3.1 (T63) Canada T63 (2.8x2.8), L31 1.4x0.94, L29 (2)
CNRM-CM3 France T63 (2.8x2.8), L45 1.875x(0.5-2), L31 (3)
CSIRO-Mk3.0 Australia T63, L18 1.875x0.84, L31 (4)
CSIRO-Mk3.5 Australia T63, L18 1.875x0.84, L31 (4)
GFDL-CM2.0 USA 2.5x2.0, L24 1.0x(1/3-1), L50 (5)
GFDL-CM2.1 USA 2.5x2.0, L24 1.0x(1/3-1), L50 (5)
GISS-AOM USA 4x3, L12 4x3, L16 (6)
GISS-MODEL-EH USA 5x4, L20 5x4, L13 (7)
GISS-MODEL-ER USA 5x4, L20 5x4, L13 (7)
IAP-FGOALS1.0-G China 2.8x2.8, L26 1x1, L16 (8)
INGV-ECHAM4 Italy T42, L19 2x(0.5-2), L31 (9)
INM-CM3.0 Russia 5x4, L21 2.5x2, L33 (10)
IPSL-CM4 France 2.5x3.75, L19 2x(1-2), L30 (11)
MIROC3.2-HIRES Japan T106, L56 0.28x0.19, L47 (12)
MIROC3.2-MEDRES Japan T42, L20 1.4x(0.5-1.4), L43 (12)
MIUB-ECHO-G Germany/Korea T30, L19 T42, L20 (13)
MPI-ECHAM5 Germany T63, L32 1x1, L41 (14)
MRI-CGCM2.3.2A Japan T42, L30 2.5x(0.5-2.0) (15)
NCAR-CCSM3.0 USA T85L26, 1.4x1.4 1x(0.27-1), L40 (16)
NCAR-PCM1 USA T42 (2.8x2.8), L18 1x(0.27-1), L40 (17)
UKMO-HADCM3 UK 3.75x2.5, L19 1.25x1.25, L20 (18)
UKMO-HADGEM1 UK 1.875x1.25, L38 1.25x1.25, L20 (19)
 Table S2 List of available GCMs used in the study and their main characteristics
Ensemble
Model name NC2 HRx3 NR2 HRy3 Calendar4
members1
BCC-CSM1.1 r1i1p1 128 2.8125 64 2.8125 365
BNU-ESM r1i1p1 128 2.8125 44 4.0909 365
CCCMA-CanCM4 r[1-10]i1p1 128 2.8125 64 2.8125 365
CCCMA-CanESM2 r[1-5]i1p1 128 2.8125 64 2.8125 365
CNRM-CM5 r1i1p1 256 1.4063 128 1.4063 366
CSIRO-ACCESS1.0 r1i1p1 192 1.875 145 1.2414 366
CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 r[1-10]i1p1 192 1.875 96 1.875 365
ICHEC-EC-EARTH r[6,8]i1p1 320 1.125 160 1.125 366
INM-CM4 r1i1p1 180 2.0 120 1.5 365
IPSL-CM5a-LR r[1-4]i1p1 96 3.75 96 1.875 365
IPSL-CM5a-MR r1i1p1 144 2.5 143 1.2587 365
IPSL-CM5b-LR r1i1p1 96 3.75 96 1.875 365
MIROC-ESM r1i1p1 128 2.8125 64 2.8125 366
MIROC-ESM-CHEM r1i1p1 128 2.8125 64 2.8125 366
MIROC-MIROC4h r[1-3]i1p1 640 0.5625 320 0.5625 366
MIROC-MIROC5 r1i1p1 256 1.4063 128 1.4063 365
MOHC-HadCM3 r[1-10]i1p1 96 3.75 73 2.4658 360
MOHC-HadGEM2-CC r1i1p1 192 1.875 145 1.2414 360
MOHC-HadGEM2-ES r[1-4]i1p1 192 1.875 145 1.2414 360
MPI-ESM-LR r[1-3]i1p1 192 1.875 96 1.875 366
MPI-ESM-MR r1i1p1 192 1.875 96 1.875 366
MRI-CGCM3 r[1,5]i1p[1,2] 320 1.125 160 1.125 366
NCAR-CCSM4 r[1,2]i1p1 288 1.25 192 0.9375 365
NCC-NORESM1-M r1i1p1 144 2.5 96 1.875 365
GFDL-ESM2G r1i1p1 144 2.5 90 2.0 365
GFDL-ESM2M r1i1p1 144 2.5 90 2.0 365
1
Ensemble member names as specified in ref. (20), with r referring to the “realization” (i.e. equally realistic runs but
initialized with different initial conditions), “i” referring to the initialization method (not relevant for historical runs),
and “p” referring to any perturbed physics ensemble.
2
Number of columns (NC) and rows (NR) in the climate grid
3
Horizontal resolution in the x-axis (longitude, HRx), and y-axis (latitude, HRy)
4
Type of calendar used in the climate model run: 365 is a calendar without leap years, 366 is the standard Gregorian
calendar (with leap year), and 360 refers to the calendar in which all months have 30 days only used by the UK
MetOffice climate models.
 Table S3 Studies investigating cropping system sensitivity to variation in climate conditions
No. Crop(s) Year published Country/region Model(s) Ref.
1 maize 2008 South Africa CERES (21)
Sub-Saharan CERES
2 maize 2010 (22)
Africa Statistical
3 wheat 2008 Italy CERES (23)
InfoCrop
4 rice 2007 India (24)
ORYZA2000
5 rice 2000 India CERES (25)
6 rice, wheat 2004 Bangladesh CERES (26)
7 rice, wheat 1998 India CERES (27)
8 sorghum 2010 India InfoCrop (28)
9 wheat 2009 Australia APSIM (29)
10 wheat 2003 Australia APSIM (30)
maize, wheat, sugarcane,
11 groundnut, sunflower, 2005 South Africa Ricardian (31)
soybean
12 sorghum, millet 2013 West Africa SARRA-H (32)1
1
The study of Sultan et al. (2013) included aggregated figures for sorghum and millet. These were used directly, as the study’s
narrative reports rather similar trends in space and time for both crops.
 4.5
X (longitude) Y (latitude)
4.0 CMIP5 mean (y) CMIP3 mean (y)
CMIP5 mean (x) CMIP3 mean (x)
3.5

3.0
Gridcell size (DD)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
MPI-ESM-MR
MPI-ESM-LR

INM-CM4
IPSL-CM5a-MR
CSIRO-ACCESS1.0
CSIRO-Mk3.6.0

IPSL-CM5a-LR
IPSL-CM5b-LR
BNU-ESM
GFDL-ESM2M
CNRM-CM5

BCC-CSM1.1

MIROC-ESM
MRI-CGCM3

MIROC-MIROC5
NCAR-CCSM4

GFDL-ESM2G

MOHC-HadCM3
ICHEC-EC-EARTH
MIROC-MIROC4h

CCCMA-CanCM4
CCCMA-CanESM2

MIROC-ESM-CHEM
MOHC-HadGEM2-ES
MOHC-HadGEM2-CC

NCC-NorESM1-M

Figure S1 Overview of the CMIP5 climate model ensemble horizontal resolution in relation with
CMIP3. Values correspond to sizes (latitude, longitude) of grid cells in decimal degrees (DD).
Horizontal lines show means of all models for each CMIP ensemble (CMIP3 is the average of 24
GCMs from ref. (33), and CMIP5 is the average of 26 GCMs, Table S1).
Figure S2 RMSE of all 70 CMIP5 climate model runs and the multi-model-mean across two
regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the distribution of all
seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional details as in Fig. 2
in main text.
Figure S3 Values of RMSEM of all 70 CMIP5 climate model simulations and the multi-model-
mean across the five regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the
distribution of all seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional
details as in Fig. 2 in main text. Dashed red lines indicate where RMSE exceeds 30 % and 50 %
with respect to the mean.
Figure S4 Values of RMSESD of all 70 CMIP5 climate model simulations and the multi-model-
mean across the five regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the
distribution of all seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional
details as in Fig. 2. Dashed red lines indicate where RMSE exceeds 30 % and 50 % with respect
to the spatial variability.
Figure S5 Values of RMSE of all 24 CMIP3 climate model simulations and the multi-model-
mean across the five regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the
distribution of all seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional
details as in Fig. 2.
Figure S6 Values of RMSEM of all 24 CMIP3 climate model simulations and the multi-model-
mean across the five regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the
distribution of all seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional
details as in Fig. 2. Dashed red lines indicate where RMSE exceeds 30 % and 50 % with respect
to the spatial mean.
Figure S7 Values of RMSESD of all 24 CMIP3 climate model simulations and the multi-model-
mean across the five regions and four seasons (and the annual totals or means). Plots show the
distribution of all seasons and the annual total or mean for three different variables. Additional
details as in Fig. 2. Dashed red lines indicate where RMSE exceeds 30 % and 50 % with respect
to the spatial variability.
Figure S8 Average CMIP3 (right) and CMIP5 (left) climate model skill in reproducing
interannual variability as measured by the variability index (VI, Eq. 4). The four variables are
shown by rows (from top to bottom): annual mean temperature, diurnal temperature range,
annual total precipitation, and annual wet-day frequency. Blue areas (where VI < 0.5) indicate
high model skill. Values shown are means of all climate model simulations (see Supplementary
Tables S1 and S2 for a list of models) per grid cell.
Figure S9 Improvement in skill (measured through RMSEM) to simulate climatological diurnal
temperature range in CMIP5 (red) climate models with respect to CMIP3 (blue). The continuous
lines show the average probability density function (PDF) of all GCMs in each ensemble and the
shading shows ± one standard deviation. Dashed lines show the PDF of the multi-model mean
(MMM).Additional details as in Fig. 2.
Figure S10 Improvement in skill (measured through RMSEM) to simulate climatological total
seasonal precipitation in CMIP5 (red) climate models with respect to CMIP3 (blue). The
continuous lines show the average probability density function (PDF) of all GCMs in each
ensemble and the shading shows ± one standard deviation. Dashed lines show the PDF of the
multi-model mean (MMM).Additional details as in Fig. 2.
Figure S11 Improvement in skill to simulate interannual variability of all variables in CMIP5
(red) climate models with respect to CMIP3 (blue). The continuous lines show the average
probability density function (PDF) of all GCMs in each ensemble and the shading shows ± one
standard deviation. Dashed lines show the PDF of the multi-model mean (MMM).Individual
PDFs are constructed using all pixels in the analysis domain for all GCMs and the MMM. In all
panels, a dashed vertical line has been drawn at VI = 0.5 (see Methods).
Figure S12 Summarized skill of CMIP3 (blue) and CMIP5 (red) GCMs with respect to three
summary metrics: the percent of country-season combinations with RMSEM < 40 % (y-axis); the
percent of country-season combinations with correlation coefficient below 0.5 (x-axis); and the
percent of pixels within the analysis domain with VI above 0.5 (bubble size). Two variables are
shown: (A) precipitation; (B) number of wet days; (C) mean temperature and (D) diurnal
temperature range. Error bars in all cases show the spread of individual ensemble members (only
relevant for CMIP5 models –in red). Note that in order to allow a better visualization of
individual models for all variables, the scales of x- and y-axes in the four panels differ.
 Mean climate Interannual variability
Diurnal temperature range
Precipitation

Figure S13 Regional differences in seasonal model skill and gains in model skill for seasonal
diurnal temperature range (top) and seasonal precipitation (bottom). Left: percent of country-
season combinations where the RMSEM is above 40 %. Right: percent of grid cells within the
analysis domain where VI is above 0.5. Bars show the average of all GCMs and error lines span
the range of variation of individual GCM simulations of each ensemble. Region typology as in
Supplementary Fig. S1.
Supplementary references
1. Furevik T, et al. (2003) Description and evaluation of the bergen climate model: ARPEGE coupled
with MICOM. Anglais 21(1):27-51.
2. Scinocca JF, McFarlane NA, Lazare M, Li J, & Plummer D (2008) The CCCma third generation
AGCM and its extension into the middle atmosphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 8(2):7883-
7930.
3. Salas-Mélia D, et al. (2005) Description and validation of the CNRM-CM3 global coupled model.
in CNRM working note (CNRM).
4. Gordon HB, et al. (2002) The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model. in CSIRO Atmospheric Research
technical paper (Aspendale: CSIRO Atmospheric Research), p 130pp.
5. Delworth TL, et al. (2006) GFDL's CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models. Part I: Formulation and
Simulation Characteristics. Journal of Climate 19(5):643-674.
6. Russell G, Miller JR, & Rind D (1995) A Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Model for Transient Climate
Change Studies. Atmosphere-Ocean 33(4):683-730.
7. Schmidt GA, et al. (2006) Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE: Comparison
to In Situ, Satellite, and Reanalysis Data. Journal of Climate 19(2):153-192.
8. Yongqiang Y, Xuehong Z, & Yufu G (2004) Global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation
models in LASG/IAP. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 21(3):444-455.
9. Gualdi S, Scoccimarro E, & Navarra A (2008) Changes in Tropical Cyclone Activity due to Global
Warming: Results from a High-Resolution Coupled General Circulation Model. Journal of Climate
21(20):5204-5228.
10. Diansky NA & Zalensky VB (2002) Simulation of present-day climate with a coupled Atmosphere-
ocean general circulation model. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Ocean Physiscs 38(6):732-747.
11. Marti O, et al. (2005) The new IPSL climate system model: IPSL-CM4. in Note du Pole de
Modeisation (Institute Pierre Simon Laplace).
12. Hasumi H & Emori S (2004) K-1 Coupled GCM (MIROC) Description. in K-1 Technical Report
(CCSR, NIES and FRCGC).
13. Grötzner A, Sausen R, & Claussen M (1996) The impact of sub-grid scale sea-ice inhomogeneities
on the performance of the atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM3. Anglais 12(7):477-
496.
14. Jungclaus JH, et al. (2006) Ocean Circulation and Tropical Variability in the Coupled Model
ECHAM5/MPI-OM. Journal of Climate 19(16):3952-3972.
15. Yukimoto S, et al. (2001) The New Meteorological Research Institute Coupled GCM (MRI-
CGCM2) Model Climate and Variability. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics 51(2):47-88.
16. Collins WD, et al. (2006) The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3). Journal of
Climate 19(11):2122-2143.
17. Washington WM, et al. (2000) Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations.
Anglais 16(10):755-774.
18. Gordon C, et al. (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a
version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Anglais 16(2):147-168.
19. Johns TC, et al. (2006) The New Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadGEM1): Evaluation of Coupled
Simulations. Journal of Climate 19(7):1327-1353.
20. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, & Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:1-39.
21. Walker NJ & Schulze RE (2008) Climate change impacts on agro-ecosystem sustainability across
three climate regions in the maize belt of South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
124(1-2):114-124.
22. Lobell DB & Burke MB (2010) On the use of statistical models to predict crop yield responses to
climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150(11):1443-1452.
23. Cesaraccio C, et al. (2008) Using Long-Term Data and Crop Modelling to Assess Climate Change
Impacts on Durum Wheat Production in the Mediterranean. Italian Journal of Agronomy
3(3):733-734.
24. Krishnan P, Swain DK, Chandra Bhaskar B, Nayak SK, & Dash RN (2007) Impact of elevated CO2
and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation
studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 122(2):233-242.
25. Saseendran SA, Singh KK, Rathore LS, Singh SV, & Sinha SK (2000) Effects of Climate Change on
Rice Production in the Tropical Humid Climate of Kerala, India. Climatic Change 44(4):495-514.
26. Antwi-Agyei P, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Stringer LC, & Simelton E (2012) Mapping the vulnerability
of crop production to drought in Ghana using rainfall, yield and socioeconomic data. Applied
Geography 32(2):324-334.
27. Lal M, Singh KK, Rathore LS, Srinivasan G, & Saseendran SA (1998) Vulnerability of rice and
wheat yields in NW India to future changes in climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
89(2):101-114.
28. Srivastava A, Naresh Kumar S, & Aggarwal PK (2010) Assessment on vulnerability of sorghum to
climate change in India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 138(3-4):160-169.
29. Ludwig F, Milroy S, & Asseng S (2009) Impacts of recent climate change on wheat production
systems in Western Australia. Climatic Change 92(3):495-517.
30. van Ittersum MK, Howden SM, & Asseng S (2003) Sensitivity of productivity and deep drainage
of wheat cropping systems in a Mediterranean environment to changes in CO2, temperature
and precipitation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97(1-3):255-273.
31. Tollenaar M, Daynard TB, & Hunter RB (1979) Effect of Temperature on Rate of Leaf Appearance
and Flowering Date in Maize1. Crop Sci. 19(3):363-366.
32. Sultan B, et al. (2013) Assessing climate change impacts on sorghum and millet yields in the
Sudanian and Sahelian savannas of West Africa. Environmental Research Letters 8(1):014040.
33. Meehl GA, et al. (2007) THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change
Research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88(9):1383-1394.