Votre recherche
Résultats 5 ressources
-
Within the framework of the European project ENSEMBLES (ensembles‐based predictions of climate changes and their impacts) we explore the systematic bias in simulated monthly mean temperature and precipitation for an ensemble of thirteen regional climate models (RCMs). The models have been forced with the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting Reanalysis (ERA40) and are compared to a new high resolution gridded observational data set. We find that each model has a distinct systematic bias relating both temperature and precipitation bias to the observed mean. By excluding the twenty‐five percent warmest and wettest months, respectively, we find that a derived second‐order fit from the remaining months can be used to estimate the values of the excluded months. We demonstrate that the common assumption of bias cancellation (invariance) in climate change projections can have significant limitations when temperatures in the warmest months exceed 4–6 °C above present day conditions.
-
Abstract To retain the sequence of events of a regional climate model (RCM) simulation driven by a reanalysis, a method that has not been widely adopted uses an RCM with frequent reinitializations toward its driving field. In this regard, this study highlights the benefits of an RCM simulation with frequent (daily) reinitializations compared to a standard continuous RCM simulation. Both simulations are carried out with the RCM HIRHAM5, driven with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) data, over the 12-km-resolution European Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) domain covering the period 1989–2009. The analysis of daily precipitation shows improvements in the sequence of events and the maintenance of the added value from the standard continuous RCM simulation. The validation of the two RCM simulations with observations reveals that the simulation with reinitializations indeed improves the temporal correlation. Furthermore, the RCM simulation with reinitializations has lower systematic errors compared to the continuous simulation, which has a tendency to be too wet. A comparison of the distribution of wet day precipitation intensities shows similar added value in the continuous and reinitialized simulations with higher variability and extremes compared to the driving field ERA-Interim. Overall, the results suggest that the finescale climate dataset of the RCM simulation with reinitializations better suits the needs of impact studies by providing a sequence of events matching closely the observations, while limiting systematic errors and generating reliable added value. Downsides of the method with reinitializations are increased computational costs and the introduction of temporal discontinuities that are similar to those of a reanalysis.
-
This study presents two simulations of the climate over Greenland with the regional climate model (RCM) HIRHAM5 at 0.05° and 0.25° resolution driven at the lateral boundaries by the ERA‐Interim reanalysis for the period 1989–2009. These simulations are validated against observations from meteorological stations (Danish Meteorological Institute) at the coast and automatic weather stations on the ice sheet (Greenland Climate Network). Generally, the temperature and precipitation biases are small, indicating a realistic simulation of the climate over Greenland that is suitable to drive ice sheet models. However, the bias between the simulations and the few available observations does not reduce with higher resolution. This is partly explained by the lack of observations in regions where the higher resolution is expected to improve the simulated climate. The RCM simulations show that the temperature has increased the most in the northern part of Greenland and at lower elevations over the period 1989–2009. Higher resolution increases the relief variability in the model topography and causes the simulated precipitation to be larger on the coast and smaller over the main ice sheet compared to the lower‐resolution simulation. The higher‐resolution simulation likely represents the Greenlandic climate better, but the lack of observations makes it difficult to validate fully. The detailed temperature and precipitation fields that are generated with the higher resolution are recommended for producing adequate forcing fields for ice sheet models, particularly for their improved simulation of the processes occurring at the steep margins of the ice sheet. , Key Points Validation of regional climate model simulations over Greenland Description of the climate over Greenland Assessment of added value
-
Abstract The ability of four regional climate models (RCMs) to represent the Indian monsoon was verified in a consistent framework for the period 1981–2000 using the 45-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) as lateral boundary forcing data. During the monsoon period, the RCMs are able to capture the spatial distribution of precipitation with a maximum over the central and west coast of India, but with important biases at the regional scale on the east coast of India in Bangladesh and Myanmar. Most models are too warm in the north of India compared to the observations. This has an impact on the simulated mean sea level pressure from the RCMs, being in general too low compared to ERA-40. Those biases perturb the land–sea temperature and pressure contrasts that drive the monsoon dynamics and, as a consequence, lead to an overestimation of wind speed, especially over the sea. The timing of the monsoon onset of the RCMs is in good agreement with the one obtained from observationally based gridded datasets, while the monsoon withdrawal is less well simulated. A Hovmöller diagram representation of the mean annual cycle of precipitation reveals that the meridional motion of the precipitation simulated by the RCMs is comparable to the one observed, but the precipitation amounts and the regional distribution differ substantially between the four RCMs. In summary, the spread at the regional scale between the RCMs indicates that important feedbacks and processes are poorly, or not, taken into account in the state-of-the-art regional climate models.