Anthropogenic Climate Change for 1860 to 2100 Simulated with the Hadcm3 Model Under Updated Emissions Scenarios

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Anthropogenic Climate Change for 1860 to 2100 Simulated with the Hadcm3 Model Under Updated Emissions Scenarios Climate Dynamics (2003) 20: 583–612 DOI 10.1007/s00382-002-0296-y T.C. Johns Æ J.M. Gregory Æ W.J. Ingram C.E. Johnson Æ A. Jones Æ J.A. Lowe J.F.B. Mitchell Æ D.L. Roberts Æ D.M.H. Sexton D.S. Stevenson Æ S.F.B. Tett Æ M.J. Woodage Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios Received: 29 April 2002 / Accepted: 31 October 2002 / Published online: 18 February 2003 Ó Springer-Verlag 2003 Abstract In this study we examine the anthropogenically considered, but marked drying in the mid-USA and forced climate response over the historical period, 1860 southern Europe and significantly wetter conditions for to present, and projected response to 2100, using South Asia, in June–July–August, are robust and sig- updated emissions scenarios and an improved coupled nificant. model (HadCM3) that does not use flux adjustments. We concentrate on four new Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) namely (A1FI, A2, B2, B1) prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1 Introduction Third Assessment Report, considered more self-consis- tent in their socio-economic and emissions structure, There is growing expectation that increases in the con- and therefore more policy relevant, than older scenarios centrations of greenhouse gases arising from human ac- like IS92a. We include an interactive model representa- tivity will lead to substantial changes in climate in the tion of the anthropogenic sulfur cycle and both direct twenty first century. Indeed, there is already evidence and indirect forcings from sulfate aerosols, but omit the that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases second indirect forcing effect through cloud lifetimes. (GHGs) have altered the large-scale patterns of tem- The modelled first indirect forcing effect through cloud perature over the twentieth century (Santer et al. 1996; droplet size is near the centre of the IPCC uncertainty Tett et al. 1999; Barnett et al. 1999; Stott et al. 2001; range. We also model variations in tropospheric and Mitchell et al. 2001), although natural factors, including stratospheric ozone. Greenhouse gas-forced climate changes in solar output and episodic volcanic emissions, change response in B2 resembles patterns in IS92a but is may also have contributed. Future climate change will smaller. Sulfate aerosol and ozone forcing substantially probably be dominated by the response to anthropogenic modulates the response, cooling the land, particularly forcing factors. Large uncertainties remain, however, in northern mid-latitudes, and altering the monsoon the expected anthropogenic climate response, partly structure. By 2100, global mean warming in SRES sce- through model uncertainty in the projected climate sen- narios ranges from 2.6 to 5.3 K above 1900 and pre- sitivity to increasing GHGs and partly as a result of both cipitation rises by 1%/K through the twenty first century physical and modelling uncertainties in the amplitude (1.4%/K omitting aerosol changes). Large-scale patterns and geographical patterns of non-GHG forcings which of response broadly resemble those in an earlier model modulate this GHG-forced response (particularly from (HadCM2), but with important regional differences, sulfate aerosol indirect cooling effects). particularly in the tropics. Some divergence in future The main motivation for the present study is to response occurs across scenarios for the regions provide up-to-date estimates of global climate change suitable for deriving impacts assessments on regional T.C. Johns (&) Æ J.M. Gregory Æ W.J. Ingram Æ C.E. Johnson scales with self-consistent scenario assumptions. Even A. Jones Æ J.A. Lowe Æ J.F.B. Mitchell Æ D.L. Roberts though some of the regional details may be unreliable, D.M.H. Sexton Æ S.F.B. Tett Æ M.J. Woodage this approach at least gives a picture of possible conse- Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, London Road, Bracknell, RG12 2SY, UK quences of alternative future emissions scenarios, de- E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.com rived in a physically consistent way, which can be interpreted for policymakers in the context of negotia- D.S. Stevenson Department of Meteorology, University of Edinburgh King’s tions to limit emissions so as to prevent ’dangerous’ Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland, UK, climate change. 584 Johns et al.: Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model Some questions that arise are whether GHG-induced warming (determined by global average emissions) will 2 Model description dominate, or whether local sulfate aerosol forcing (much The HadCM3 coupled model (Gordon et al. 2000) is used in the more dependent on local emissions) will be a significant simulations. HadCM3 was developed from the earlier HadCM2 factor over the twenty first century and, if the latter, model (Johns et al. 1997), but various improvements to the atmo- what differences in the regional responses might be ex- sphere and ocean components mean that it needs no artificial flux pected under different emissions scenarios? Could non- adjustments to prevent excessive climate drift. The atmosphere and linear climate-chemistry feedbacks become increasingly ocean exchange information once per day, heat and water fluxes being conserved exactly. Momentum fluxes are interpolated be- important to consider in future, with an implication of tween atmosphere and ocean grids so are not conserved precisely, added importance attached to the details of alternative but this non-conservation is not thought to have a significant effect. emissions pathways that result in similar time-integrated emissions? To tackle such questions it is important that there should be consistency and some plausibility about 2.1 Atmosphere the emissions scenarios used to force climate models. The atmospheric component of the model, HadAM3 (Pope et al. The IPCC SRES (‘Special Report on Emissions Sce- 2000), has 19 levels with a horizontal resolution of 2.5° latitude by narios’, Nakicenovic et al. 2000) marker scenarios de- 3.75° longitude, comparable to a spectral resolution of T42. veloped in conjunction with the IPCC Third Assessment A new radiation scheme is included with six spectral bands in Report, have been developed specifically to provide the shortwave and eight in the longwave. The radiative effects of minor greenhouse gases as well as CO2, water vapour and ozone more self-consistent and up-to-date scenarios for climate are explicitly represented (Edwards and Slingo 1996). A simple modelling than hitherto. We have therefore primarily parametrization of background aerosol (Cusack et al. 1998) is also adopted these in the present study, though we also refer included. back to the older IS92a scenario which has already been A new land surface scheme (Cox et al. 1999) includes a repre- used extensively in climate impact studies (e.g. US sentation of the freezing and melting of soil moisture, as well as surface runoff and soil drainage; the formulation of evapotranspi- National Assessment Report 2000; Hulme et al. 1999; ration includes the dependence of stomatal resistance on temper- Hulme and Jenkins 1998). ature, vapour pressure and CO2 concentration. The surface albedo Given emission scenarios of GHGs, sulfur and other is a function of snow depth, vegetation type and also of tempera- anthropogenic precursor gases, understanding the cli- ture over snow and ice. A penetrative convective scheme (Gregory and Rowntree 1990) mate sensitivity to the resulting anthropogenic forcings is used, modified to include an explicit downdraught and the direct and the interactions between climate change, atmo- impact of convection on momentum (Gregory et al. 1997). Para- spheric chemistry feedbacks and transport processes is metrizations of orographic and gravity wave drag have been revised still a major challenge. Coupled climate models in- to model the effects of anisotropic orography, high drag states, flow blocking and trapped lee waves (Milton and Wilson 1996; Gregory cluding representations of the relevant physical, dy- et al. 1998). The large-scale precipitation and cloud scheme is namical and chemical processes are an essential tool, formulated in terms of an explicit cloud water variable following not just for making predictions but for increasing un- Smith (1990). The effective radius of cloud droplets is a function of derstanding of the feedbacks and sensitivities. Here we cloud water content and droplet number concentration (Martin use a state-of-the-art coupled climate model (HadCM3, et al. 1994). Gordon et al. 2000) incorporating an explicit sulfur cycle to predict anthropogenic sulfate burdens from emissions and including the anthropogenic forcing ef- 2.2 Ocean and sea ice fects thought to be most relevant at the moment, ap- The oceanic component of the model has 20 levels with a horizontal plied in a way as consistent with the emissions scenario resolution of 1.25·1.25°. At this resolution it is possible to rep- as possible. The results therefore represent plausible resent important details in oceanic current structures (Wood et al. estimates of global climate change consequent upon the 1999). Horizontal mixing of tracers uses a version of the adiabatic socio-economic assumptions underlying the emissions diffusion scheme of Gent and McWilliams (1990) with a variable scenarios. thickness diffusion parametrization (Wright 1997; Visbeck et al. The structure is as follows: in the next section 1997). There is no explicit horizontal diffusion of tracers. The we document the version of the coupled model used in along-isopycnal diffusivity of tracers is 1000 m2/s and horizontal the study and the physical basis for calculating the momentum viscosity varies with latitude between 3000 and 6000 m2/s at the poles and equator respectively. anthropogenic forcings. In Sect. 3 we briefly outline the Near-surface vertical mixing is parametrized by a Kraus-Turner performance of the model in a long control integration mixed layer scheme for tracers (Kraus and Turner 1967), and a with no anthropogenic forcing imposed.
Recommended publications
  • Climate Models and Their Evaluation
    8 Climate Models and Their Evaluation Coordinating Lead Authors: David A. Randall (USA), Richard A. Wood (UK) Lead Authors: Sandrine Bony (France), Robert Colman (Australia), Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), John Fyfe (Canada), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), Andrew Pitman (Australia), Jagadish Shukla (USA), Jayaraman Srinivasan (India), Ronald J. Stouffer (USA), Akimasa Sumi (Japan), Karl E. Taylor (USA) Contributing Authors: K. AchutaRao (USA), R. Allan (UK), A. Berger (Belgium), H. Blatter (Switzerland), C. Bonfi ls (USA, France), A. Boone (France, USA), C. Bretherton (USA), A. Broccoli (USA), V. Brovkin (Germany, Russian Federation), W. Cai (Australia), M. Claussen (Germany), P. Dirmeyer (USA), C. Doutriaux (USA, France), H. Drange (Norway), J.-L. Dufresne (France), S. Emori (Japan), P. Forster (UK), A. Frei (USA), A. Ganopolski (Germany), P. Gent (USA), P. Gleckler (USA), H. Goosse (Belgium), R. Graham (UK), J.M. Gregory (UK), R. Gudgel (USA), A. Hall (USA), S. Hallegatte (USA, France), H. Hasumi (Japan), A. Henderson-Sellers (Switzerland), H. Hendon (Australia), K. Hodges (UK), M. Holland (USA), A.A.M. Holtslag (Netherlands), E. Hunke (USA), P. Huybrechts (Belgium), W. Ingram (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), B. Kirtman (USA), S. Klein (USA), R. Koster (USA), P. Kushner (Canada), J. Lanzante (USA), M. Latif (Germany), N.-C. Lau (USA), M. Meinshausen (Germany), A. Monahan (Canada), J.M. Murphy (UK), T. Osborn (UK), T. Pavlova (Russian Federationi), V. Petoukhov (Germany), T. Phillips (USA), S. Power (Australia), S. Rahmstorf (Germany), S.C.B. Raper (UK), H. Renssen (Netherlands), D. Rind (USA), M. Roberts (UK), A. Rosati (USA), C. Schär (Switzerland), A. Schmittner (USA, Germany), J. Scinocca (Canada), D. Seidov (USA), A.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation and Software User’S Manual, Version 4.1
    The Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System version 2 (CanSIPSv2) Canadian Meteorological Centre Technical Note H. Lin1, W. J. Merryfield2, R. Muncaster1, G. Smith1, M. Markovic3, A. Erfani3, S. Kharin2, W.-S. Lee2, M. Charron1 1-Meteorological Research Division 2-Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) 3-Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) 7 May 2019 i Revisions Version Date Authors Remarks 1.0 2019/04/22 Hai Lin First draft 1.1 2019/04/26 Hai Lin Corrected the bias figures. Comments from Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield 1.2 2019/05/01 Hai Lin Figures of CanSIPSv2 uses CanCM4i plus GEM-NEMO 1.3 2019/05/03 Bill Merrifield Added CanCM4i information, sea ice Hai Lin verification, 6.6 and 9 1.4 2019/05/06 Hai Lin All figures of CanSIPSv2 with CanCM4i and GEM-NEMO, made available by Slava Kharin ii © Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2019 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Modifications to models .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 CanCM4i .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 GEM-NEMO .................................................................................................................... 6 3 Forecast initialization .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Tropospheric Transport in the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) Simulations
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7217–7235, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7217-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Large-scale tropospheric transport in the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) simulations Clara Orbe1,2,3,a, Huang Yang3, Darryn W. Waugh3, Guang Zeng4, Olaf Morgenstern 4, Douglas E. Kinnison5, Jean-Francois Lamarque5, Simone Tilmes5, David A. Plummer6, John F. Scinocca7, Beatrice Josse8, Virginie Marecal8, Patrick Jöckel9, Luke D. Oman10, Susan E. Strahan10,11, Makoto Deushi12, Taichu Y. Tanaka12, Kohei Yoshida12, Hideharu Akiyoshi13, Yousuke Yamashita13,14, Andreas Stenke15, Laura Revell15,16, Timofei Sukhodolov15,17, Eugene Rozanov15,17, Giovanni Pitari18, Daniele Visioni18, Kane A. Stone19,20,b, Robyn Schofield19,20, and Antara Banerjee21 1Goddard Earth Sciences Technology and Research (GESTAR), Columbia, MD, USA 2Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA 3Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA 4National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand 5National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM) Laboratory, Boulder, USA 6Climate Research Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Montreal, QC, Canada 7Climate Research Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada 8Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques UMR 3589, Météo-France/CNRS,
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Dispersion of Radioactive Material in Radiological Risk Assessment and Emergency Response
    Progress in NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 1, p.7-13 (2011) REVIEW Atmospheric Dispersion of Radioactive Material in Radiological Risk Assessment and Emergency Response YAO Rentai * China Institute for Radiation Protection, P.O.Box 120, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030006, China The purpose of a consequence assessment system is to assess the consequences of specific hazards on people and the environment. In this paper, the studies on technique and method of atmospheric dispersion modeling of radioactive material in radiological risk assessment and emergency response are reviewed in brief. Some current statuses of nuclear accident consequences assessment in China were introduced. In the future, extending the dispersion modeling scales such as urban building scale, establishing high quality experiment dataset and method of model evaluation, improved methods of real-time modeling using limited inputs, and so on, should be promoted with high priority of doing much more work. KEY WORDS: atmospheric model, risk assessment, emergency response, nuclear accident 11) I. Introduction from U.S. NOAA, and SPEEDI/WSPEEDI from The studies and developments of techniques and methods Japan/JAERI. However, the needs of emergency of atmospheric dispersion modeling of radioactive material management may not be well satisfied by existing models in radiological risk assessment and emergency response which are not well designed and confronted with difficulty have evolved over the past 50-60 years. The three marked in detailed constructions of local wind and turbulence
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 29. Introduction to Atmospheric Chemical Transport Models
    Lecture 29. Introduction to atmospheric chemical transport models. Part 1. Objectives: 1. Model types. 2. Box models. 3. One-dimensional models. 4. Two-dimensional models. 5. Three-dimensional models. Readings: Graedel T. and P.Crutzen. “Atmospheric change: an earth system perspective”. Chapter 15.”Bulding environmental chemical models”, 1992. 1. Model types. Mathematical models provide the necessary framework for integration of our understanding of individual atmospheric processes and study of their interactions. Note, that atmosphere is a complex reactive system in which numerous physical and chemical processes occur simultaneously. • Atmospheric chemical transport models are defined according to their spatial scale: Model Typical domain scale Typical resolution Microscale 200x200x100 m 5 m Mesoscale(urban) 100x100x5 km 2 km Regional 1000x1000x10 km 20 km Synoptic(continental) 3000x3000x20 km 80 km Global 65000x65000x20km 50x50 1 Figure 29.1 Components of a chemical transport model (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). 2 • Domain of the atmospheric model is the area that is simulated. The computation domain consists of an array of computational cells, each having uniform chemical composition. The size of cells determines the spatial resolution of the model. • Atmospheric chemical transport models are also characterized by their dimensionality: zero-dimensional (box) model; one-dimensional (column) model; two-dimensional model; and three-dimensional model. • Model time scale depends on a specific application varying from hours (e.g., air quality model) to hundreds of years (e.g., climate models) 3 Two principal approaches to simulate changes in the chemical composition of a given air parcel: 1) Lagrangian approach: air parcel moves with the local wind so that there is no mass exchange that is allowed to enter the air parcel and its surroundings (except of species emissions).
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Summary of Plans for the GMAO Core Priorities and Initiatives for the Next 5 Years
    A Brief Summary of Plans for the GMAO Core Priorities and Initiatives for the Next 5 years Provided as information for ROSES 2012 A.13 – MAP Developments in the GMAO are focused on the next generation systems, GEOS-6, and an Integrated Earth System Analysis and the associated modeling system that supports that analysis. GEOS-6 and IESA (1) The GEOS-6 system will be built around the next generation, non-hydrostatic atmospheric model with aerosol-cloud microphysics (advances upon the Morrison-Gettelman cloud microphysics and the Modal Aerosol Model (MAM) aerosol microphysics module for the inclusion of aerosol indirect effects) and an accompanying hybrid (ensemble-variational) 4DVar atmospheric assimilation system. (2) IESA capabilities for other parts of the earth system, including atmospheric chemical constituents and aerosols, ocean circulation, land hydrology, and carbon budget will be built upon our existing separate assimilation capabilities. The GEOS Model Our modeling strategy is driven by the need to have a comprehensive global model valid for both weather and climate and for use in both simulation and assimilation. Our main task in atmospheric modeling during the next five years will be to make the transition to GEOS-6. This direction is driven by (i) the need to improve the representation of clouds and precipitation to enable use of cloud- and precipitation-contaminated satellite radiance observations in NWP, and (ii) the research goal of understanding and predicting weather- climate connections. Development will focus on 1km to 10km resolutions that will be needed for the data assimilation system (DAS). Climate resolutions (10-100km) will not be ignored, but developments for resolutions coarser than 50 km will have lower priority.
    [Show full text]
  • Assimila Blank
    NERC NERC Strategy for Earth System Modelling: Technical Support Audit Report Version 1.1 December 2009 Contact Details Dr Zofia Stott Assimila Ltd 1 Earley Gate The University of Reading Reading, RG6 6AT Tel: +44 (0)118 966 0554 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 565822 email: [email protected] NERC STRATEGY FOR ESM – AUDIT REPORT VERSION1.1, DECEMBER 2009 Contents 1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Context .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Scope of the ESM audit ............................................................................................ 4 1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5 2. Scene setting ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 NERC Strategy......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Definition of Earth system modelling ........................................................................ 8 2.3 Broad categories of activities supported by NERC ................................................. 10 2.4 Structure of the report ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Global Models Used Within Phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI)
    Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 639–671, 2017 www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/639/2017/ doi:10.5194/gmd-10-639-2017 © Author(s) 2017. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) Olaf Morgenstern1, Michaela I. Hegglin2, Eugene Rozanov18,5, Fiona M. O’Connor14, N. Luke Abraham17,20, Hideharu Akiyoshi8, Alexander T. Archibald17,20, Slimane Bekki21, Neal Butchart14, Martyn P. Chipperfield16, Makoto Deushi15, Sandip S. Dhomse16, Rolando R. Garcia7, Steven C. Hardiman14, Larry W. Horowitz13, Patrick Jöckel10, Beatrice Josse9, Douglas Kinnison7, Meiyun Lin13,23, Eva Mancini3, Michael E. Manyin12,22, Marion Marchand21, Virginie Marécal9, Martine Michou9, Luke D. Oman12, Giovanni Pitari3, David A. Plummer4, Laura E. Revell5,6, David Saint-Martin9, Robyn Schofield11, Andrea Stenke5, Kane Stone11,a, Kengo Sudo19, Taichu Y. Tanaka15, Simone Tilmes7, Yousuke Yamashita8,b, Kohei Yoshida15, and Guang Zeng1 1National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, New Zealand 2Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK 3Department of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Universitá dell’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy 4Environment and Climate Change Canada, Montréal, Canada 5Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich (ETHZ), Zürich, Switzerland 6Bodeker Scientific, Christchurch, New Zealand 7National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA 8National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba, Japan 9CNRM UMR 3589, Météo-France/CNRS,
    [Show full text]
  • DJ Karoly Et
    Supporting Online Material “Detection of a human influence on North American climate”, D. J. Karoly et al. (2003) Materials and Methods Description of the climate models GFDL R30 is a spectral atmospheric model with rhomboidal truncation at wavenumber 30 equivalent to 3.75° longitude × 2.2° latitude (96 × 80) with 14 levels in the vertical. The atmospheric model is coupled to an 18 level gridpoint (192 × 80) ocean model where two ocean grid boxes underlie each atmospheric grid box exactly. Both models are described by Delworth et al. (S1) and Dixon et al. (S2). HadCM2 and HadCM3 use the same atmospheric horizontal resolution, 3.75°× 2.5° (96 × 72) finite difference model (T42/R30 equivalent) with 19 levels in the atmosphere and 20 levels in the ocean (S3, S4). For HadCM2, the ocean horizontal grid lies exactly under that of the atmospheric model. The ocean component of HadCM3 uses much higher resolution (1.25° × 1.25°) with six ocean grid boxes for every atmospheric grid box. In the context of results shown here, the main difference between the two models is that HadCM3 includes improved representations of physical processes in the atmosphere and the ocean (S5). For example, HadCM3 employs a radiation scheme that explicitly represents the radiative effects of minor greenhouse gases as well as CO2, water vapor and ozone (S6), as well as a simple parametrization of background aerosol (S7). ECHAM4/OPYC3 is an atmospheric T42 spectral model equivalent to 2.8° longitude × 2.8° latitude (128 × 64) with 19 vertical layers. The ocean model OPYC3 uses isopycnals as the vertical coordinate system.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Reanalysis
    from Newsletter Number 139 – Spring 2014 METEOROLOGY Climate reanalysis doi:10.21957/qnreh9t5 Dick Dee interviewed by Bob Riddaway Climate reanalysis This article appeared in the Meteorology section of ECMWF Newsletter No. 139 – Spring 2014, pp. 15–21. Climate reanalysis Dick Dee interviewed by Bob Riddaway Dick Dee is the Head of the Reanalysis Section at ECMWF. He is responsible for leading a group of scientists producing state-of-the art global climate datasets. This has involved coordinating two international research projects: ERA-CLIM and ERA-CLIM2. The ERA-CLIM2 project has recently started – what is its purpose? This exciting new project extends and expands the work begun in the ERA-CLIM project that ended in December 2013. The aim is to produce physically consistent reanalyses of the global atmosphere, ocean, land-surface, cryosphere and the carbon cycle – see Box A for more information about what is involved in reanalysis. The project is at the heart of a concerted effort in Europe to build the information infrastructure needed to support climate monitoring, climate research and climate services, based on the best available science and observations. The ERA-CLIM2 project will rely on ECMWF’s expertise in modelling and data assimilation to develop a first th coupled ocean-atmosphere reanalysis spanning the 20 century. It includes activities aimed at improving the available observational record (e.g. through data rescue and reprocessing), the assimilating model (primarily by coupling the atmosphere with the ocean) and the data assimilation techniques (e.g. related to data assimilation in coupled models). The project will also develop improved data services in order to prepare for the need to support new classes of users, including providers of climate services and European policy makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling of the February 2014 Waste Isolation
    L L N L ‐ XAtmospheric Dispersion X XModeling of the February 2014 X ‐ Waste Isolation Pilot Plant X XRelease X X John Nasstrom, Tom Piggott, X Matthew Simpson, Megan Lobaugh, Lydia Tai, Brenda Pobanz, Kristen Yu July 22, 2015 LLNL-TR-666379 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE‐AC52‐07NA27344. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Research 60:103
    Vol. 60: 103–117, 2014 CLIMATE RESEARCH Published online June 17 doi: 10.3354/cr01222 Clim Res Ranking of global climate models for India using multicriterion analysis K. Srinivasa Raju1, D. Nagesh Kumar2,3,* 1Department of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science-Pilani, Hyderabad campus, India 2Center for Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, 560012 Bangalore, India 3Present address: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, 560012 Bangalore, India ABSTRACT: Eleven GCMs (BCCR-BCCM2.0, INGV-ECHAM4, GFDL2.0, GFDL2.1, GISS, IPSL- CM4, MIROC3, MRI-CGCM2, NCAR-PCMI, UKMO-HADCM3 and UKMO-HADGEM1) were evaluated for India (covering 73 grid points of 2.5° × 2.5°) for the climate variable ‘precipitation rate’ using 5 performance indicators. Performance indicators used were the correlation coefficient, normalised root mean square error, absolute normalised mean bias error, average absolute rela- tive error and skill score. We used a nested bias correction methodology to remove the systematic biases in GCM simulations. The Entropy method was employed to obtain weights of these 5 indi- cators. Ranks of the 11 GCMs were obtained through a multicriterion decision-making outranking method, PROMETHEE-2 (Preference Ranking Organisation Method of Enrichment Evaluation). An equal weight scenario (assigning 0.2 weight for each indicator) was also used to rank the GCMs. An effort was also made to rank GCMs for 4 river basins (Godavari, Krishna, Mahanadi and Cauvery) in peninsular India. The upper Malaprabha catchment in Karnataka, India, was chosen to demonstrate the Entropy and PROMETHEE-2 methods. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was employed to assess the association between the ranking patterns.
    [Show full text]