Abstract. End users studying impacts and risks caused by human-induced climate change are often presented with large multi-model ensembles of climate projections whose composition and size are arbitrarily determined. An efficient and versatile method that finds a subset which maintains certain key properties from the full ensemble is needed, but very little work has been done in this area. Therefore, users typically make their own somewhat subjective subset choices and commonly use the equally weighted model mean as a best estimate. However, different climate model simulations cannot necessarily be regarded as independent estimates due to the presence of duplicated code and shared development history.Here, we present an efficient and flexible tool that makes better use of the ensemble as a whole by finding a subset with improved mean performance compared to the multi-model mean while at the same time maintaining the spread and addressing the problem of model interdependence. Out-of-sample skill and reliability are demonstrated using model-as-truth experiments. This approach is illustrated with one set of optimisation criteria but we also highlight the flexibility of cost functions, depending on the focus of different users. The technique is useful for a range of applications that, for example, minimise present-day bias to obtain an accurate ensemble mean, reduce dependence in ensemble spread, maximise future spread, ensure good performance of individual models in an ensemble, reduce the ensemble size while maintaining important ensemble characteristics, or optimise several of these at the same time. As in any calibration exercise, the final ensemble is sensitive to the metric, observational product, and pre-processing steps used.

Land‐atmosphere coupling can amplify heat extremes under declining soil moisture. Here we evaluate this coupling in 25 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models using flux tower observations over Europe and North America. We compared heat extremes (2.5% of the hottest days of the year) and the evaporative fraction (EF; a measure of land surface dryness) on the day the heat extremes occurred. We found a negative relationship between the magnitude of heat extremes and EF in both models and observations in transitional regions, with the hottest temperatures occurring during the driest days, with a similar but less certain relationship in dry regions. Surprisingly, many models also showed an amplification of heat extremes by low EF in wet regions, a finding not supported by observations. Many models may therefore overamplify heat extremes over wet regions by overestimating the strength of land‐atmosphere coupling, with consequences for future projections of heat extremes.

The annual “State of the Climate” report, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), has included a supplement since 2011 composed of brief analyses of the human influence on recent major extreme weather events. There are now several dozen extreme weather events examined in these supplements, but these studies have all differed in their data sources as well as their approaches to defining the events, analyzing the events, and the consideration of the role of anthropogenic emissions. This study reexamines most of these events using a single analytical approach and a single set of climate model and observational data sources. In response to recent studies recommending the importance of using multiple methods for extreme weather event attribution, results are compared from these analyses to those reported in the BAMS supplements collectively, with the aim of characterizing the degree to which the lack of a common methodological framework may or may not influence overall conclusions. Results are broadly similar to those reported earlier for extreme temperature events but disagree for a number of extreme precipitation events. Based on this, it is advised that the lack of comprehensive uncertainty analysis in recent extreme weather attribution studies is important and should be considered when interpreting results, but as yet it has not introduced a systematic bias across these studies.

Changes in precipitation totals and extremes are among the most relevant consequences of climate change, but in particular regional changes remain uncertain. While aggregating over larger regions reduces the noise in time series and typically shows increases in the intensity of precipitation extremes, it has been argued that this may not be the case in water-limited regions. Here we investigate longterm changes in annual precipitation totals and extremes aggregated over the world's humid, transitional, and dry regions as defined by their climatological water availability. We use the globally most complete observational datasets suitable for the analysis of daily precipitation extremes, and data from global climate model simulations. We show that precipitation totals and extremes have increased in the humid regions since the mid-20th century. Conversely, despite showing tendencies to increase, no robust changes can be detected in the drier regions, in part due to the large variability of precipitation and sparse observational coverage particularly in the driest regions. Future climate simulations under increased radiative forcing indicate total precipitation increases in more humid regions but no clear changes in the more arid regions, while precipitation extremes are more likely to increase than to decrease on average over both the humid and arid regions of the world. These results highlight the increasing risk of heavy precipitation in most regions of the world, including waterlimited regions, with implications for related impacts through flooding risk or soil erosion.