Climate models are primary tools for investigating processes in the climate system, projecting future changes, and informing decision makers. The latest generation of models provides increasingly complex and realistic representations of the real climate system, while there is also growing awareness that not all models produce equally plausible or independent simulations. Therefore, many recent studies have investigated how models differ from observed climate and how model dependence affects model output similarity, typically drawing on climatological averages over several decades. Here, we show that temperature maps of individual days drawn from datasets never used in training can be robustly identified as “model” or “observation” using the CMIP6 model archive and four observational products. An important exception is a prototype storm-resolving simulation from ICON-Sapphire which cannot be unambiguously assigned to either category. These results highlight that persistent differences between simulated and observed climate emerge at short timescales already, but very high-resolution modeling efforts may be able to overcome some of these shortcomings. Moreover, temporally out-of-sample test days can be assigned their dataset name with up to 83% accuracy. Misclassifications occur mostly between models developed at the same institution, suggesting that effects of shared code, previously documented only for climatological timescales, already emerge at the level of individual days. Our results thus demonstrate that the use of machine learning classifiers, once trained, can overcome the need for several decades of data to evaluate a given model. This opens up new avenues to test model performance and independence on much shorter timescales.
