Surveys in Geophysics

In this study, we investigate the representation of the global mean energy balance components in 10 atmospheric reanalyses, and compare their magnitudes with recent reference estimates as well as the ones simulated by the latest generation of climate models from the 6th phase of the coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP6). Despite the assimilation of comprehensive observational data in reanalyses, the spread amongst the magnitudes of their global energy balance components generally remains substantial, up to more than 20 Wm−2 in some quantities, and their consistency is typically not higher than amongst the much less observationally constrained CMIP6 models. Relative spreads are particularly large in the reanalysis global mean latent heat fluxes (exceeding 20%) and associated intensity of the global water cycle, as well as in the energy imbalances at the top-of-atmosphere and surface. A comparison of reanalysis runs in full assimilation mode with corresponding runs constrained only by sea surface temperatures reveals marginal differences in their global mean energy balance components. This indicates that discrepancies in the global energy balance components caused by the different model formulations amongst the reanalyses are hardly alleviated by the imposed observational constraints from the assimilation process. Similar to climate models, reanalyses overestimate the global mean surface downward shortwave radiation and underestimate the surface downward longwave radiation by 3–7 Wm−2. While reanalyses are of tremendous value as references for many atmospheric parameters, they currently may not be suited to serve as references for the magnitudes of the global mean energy balance components.

Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is a fundamental metric of global Earth system change, quantifying the cumulative impact of natural and anthropogenic radiative forcings and feedback. To date, the most precise measurements of EEI change are obtained through radiometric observations at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), while the quantification of EEI absolute magnitude is facilitated through heat inventory analysis, where ~ 90% of heat uptake manifests as an increase in ocean heat content (OHC). Various international groups provide OHC datasets derived from in situ and satellite observations, as well as from reanalyses ingesting many available observations. The WCRP formed the GEWEX-EEI Assessment Working Group to better understand discrepancies, uncertainties and reconcile current knowledge of EEI magnitude, variability and trends. Here, 21 OHC datasets and ocean heat uptake (OHU) rates are intercompared, providing OHU estimates ranging between 0.40 ± 0.12 and 0.96 ± 0.08 W m−2 (2005–2019), a spread that is slightly reduced when unequal ocean sampling is accounted for, and that is largely attributable to differing source data, mapping methods and quality control procedures. The rate of increase in OHU varies substantially between − 0.03 ± 0.13 (reanalysis product) and 1.1 ± 0.6 W m−2 dec−1 (satellite product). Products that either more regularly observe (satellites) or fill in situ data-sparse regions based on additional physical knowledge (some reanalysis and hybrid products) tend to track radiometric EEI variability better than purely in situ-based OHC products. This paper also examines zonal trends in TOA radiative fluxes and the impact of data gaps on trend estimates. The GEWEX-EEI community aims to refine their assessment studies, to forge a path toward best practices, e.g., in uncertainty quantification, and to formulate recommendations for future activities.

Seismic and electromagnetic (EM) imaging are essential tools for characterizing velocity and conductivity. However, the separate inversion of seismic and EM data is challenging due to the noisy measurements, inadequate data collection, and reliance on prior information, consequently resulting in uncertainty and ambiguity of the solutions. Moreover, the two methods are different in sensitivity and spatial resolution, making it difficult to discover consistencies in the inverted models. Joint inversion of seismic and EM data takes advantage of both methods and significantly improves the imaging capability of subsurface structures. In this paper, we review various coupling strategies for the joint inversion of seismic and EM data and highlight the application advances from 1-D to 3-D inversion. Specifically, we investigate the integration of machine learning techniques to tackle ill-posed inverse problems and showcase their effectiveness in coupling. Following this, we construct a deep-learning-based joint inversion workflow and provide a synthetic test to demonstrate its superiority by applying an attention mechanism, which enhances the model’s capability to focus on specific features within the data. This study proves the potential of integrating artificial intelligence into joint inversion and understanding the deep Earth interior by incorporating multiple geophysical data.

This review article provides a synthesis and perspective on how weather and climate extreme events can play a role in influencing tipping elements and triggering tipping points in the Earth System. An example of a potential critical global tipping point, induced by climate extremes in an increasingly warmer climate, is Amazon rainforest dieback that could be driven by regional increases in droughts and exacerbated by fires, in addition to deforestation. A tipping element associated with the boreal forest might also be vulnerable to heat, drought and fire. An oceanic example is the potential collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation due to extreme variability in freshwater inputs, while marine heatwaves and high acidity extremes can lead to coral reef collapse. Extreme heat events may furthermore play an important role in ice sheet, glacier and permafrost stability. Regional severe extreme events could also lead to tipping in ecosystems, as well as in human systems, in response to climate drivers. However, substantial scientific uncertainty remains on mechanistic links between extreme events and tipping points. Earth observations are of high relevance to evaluate and constrain those links between extreme events and tipping elements, by determining conditions leading to delayed recovery with a potential for tipping in the atmosphere, on land, in vegetation, and in the ocean. In the subsurface ocean, there is a lack of consistent, synoptic and high frequency observations of changes in both ocean physics and biogeochemistry. This review article shows the importance of considering the interface between extreme events and tipping points, two topics usually addressed in isolation, and the need for continued monitoring to observe early warning signs and to evaluate Earth system response to extreme events as well as improving model skill in simulating extremes, compound extremes and tipping elements.