Changes in frost, snow and Baltic sea ice by the end of the twenty-first century based on climate model projections for Europe

Changes in indices related to frost and snow in Europe by the end of the twenty-first century were analyzed based on experiments performed with seven regional climate models (RCMs). All the RCMs regionalized information from the same general circulation model (GCM), applying the IPCC-SRES A2 radiative forcing scenario. In addition, some simulations used SRES B2 radiative forcing and/or boundary conditions provided by an alternative GCM. Ice cover over the Baltic Sea was examined using a statistical model that related the annual maximum extent of ice to wintertime coastal temperatures. Fewer days with frost and snow, shorter frost seasons, a smaller liquid water equivalent of snow, and milder sea ice conditions were produced by all model simulations, irrespective of the forcing scenario and the driving GCM. The projected changes have implications across a diverse range of human activities. Details of the projections were subject to differences in RCM design, deviations between the boundary conditions of the driving GCMs, uncertainties in future emissions and random effects due to internal climate variability. A larger number of GCMs as drivers of the RCMs would most likely have resulted in somewhat wider ranges in the frost, snow and sea ice estimates than those presented in this paper.     

Global high resolution versus Limited Area Model climate change projections over Europe: quantifying confidence level from PRUDENCE results

Four high resolution atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) have been integrated with the standard forcings of the PRUDENCE experiment: IPCC-SRES A2 radiative forcing and Hadley Centre sea surface temperature and sea-ice extent. The response over Europe, calculated as the difference between the 2071–2100 and the 1961–1990 means is compared with the same diagnostic obtained with nine Regional Climate Models (RCM) all driven by the Hadley Centre atmospheric GCM. The seasonal mean response for 2m temperature and precipitation is investigated. For temperature, GCMs and RCMs behave similarly, except that GCMs exhibit a larger spread. However, during summer, the spread of the RCMs—in particular in terms of precipitation—is larger than that of the GCMs. This indicates that the European summer climate is strongly controlled by parameterized physics and/or high-resolution processes. The temperature response is larger than the systematic error. The situation is different for precipitation. The model bias is twice as large as the climate response. The confidence in PRUDENCE results comes from the fact that the models have a similar response to the IPCC-SRES A2 forcing, whereas their systematic errors are more spread. In addition, GCM precipitation response is slightly but significantly different from that of the RCMs.     

The spread amongst ENSEMBLES regional scenarios: regional climate models, driving general circulation models and interannual variability

Various combinations of thirteen regional climate models (RCM) and six general circulation models (GCM) were used in FP6-ENSEMBLES. The response to the SRES-A1B greenhouse gas concentration scenario over Europe, calculated as the difference between the 2021–2050 and the 1961–1990 means can be viewed as an expected value about which various uncertainties exist. Uncertainties are measured here by variance explained for temperature and precipitation changes over eight European sub-areas. Three sources of uncertainty can be evaluated from the ENSEMBLES database. Sampling uncertainty is due to the fact that the model climate is estimated as an average over a finite number of years (30) despite a non-negligible interannual variability. Regional model uncertainty is due to the fact that the RCMs use different techniques to discretize the equations and to represent sub-grid effects. Global model uncertainty is due to the fact that the RCMs have been driven by different GCMs. Two methods are presented to fill the many empty cells of the ENSEMBLES RCM?×?GCM matrix. The first one is based on the same approach as in FP5-PRUDENCE. The second one uses the concept of weather regimes to attempt to separate the contribution of the GCM and the RCM. The variance of the climate response is analyzed with respect to the contribution of the GCM and the RCM. The two filling methods agree that the main contributor to the spread is the choice of the GCM, except for summer precipitation where the choice of the RCM dominates the uncertainty. Of course the implication of the GCM to the spread varies with the region, being maximum in the South-western part of Europe, whereas the continental parts are more sensitive to the choice of the RCM. The third cause of spread is systematically the interannual variability. The total uncertainty about temperature is not large enough to mask the 2021–2050 response which shows a similar pattern to the one obtained for 2071–2100 in PRUDENCE. The uncertainty about precipitation prevents any quantitative assessment on the response at grid point level for the 2021–2050 period. One can however see, as in PRUDENCE, a positive response in winter (more rain in the scenario than in the reference) in northern Europe and a negative summer response in southern Europe.     

First-order impacts on winter and summer crops assessed with various high-resolution climate models in the Iberian Peninsula

The first-order or initial agricultural impacts of climate change in the Iberian Peninsula were evaluated by linking crop simulation models to several high-resolution climate models (RCMs). The RCMs provided the daily weather data for control, and the A2 and B2 IPCC scenarios. All RCMs used boundary conditions from the atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) HadAM3 while two were also bounded to two other AGCMs. The analyses were standardised to control the sources of variation and uncertainties that were added in the process. Climatic impacts on wheat and maize of climate were derived from the A2 scenario generated by RCMs bounded to HadAM3. Some results derived from B2 scenarios are included for comparisons together with impacts derived from RCMs using different boundary conditions. Crop models were used as impact models and yield was used as an indicator that summarised the effects of climate to quantify initial impacts and differentiate among regions. Comparison among RCMs was made through the choice of different crop management options. All RCM-crop model combinations detected crop failures for winter wheat in the South under control and future scenarios, and projected yield increases for spring wheat in northern and high altitude areas. Although projected impacts differed among RCMs, similar trends emerged for relative yields for some regions. RCM-crop model outputs compared favourably to others using European Re-Analysis data (ERA-15), establishing the feasibility of using direct daily outputs from RCM for impact analysis. Uncertainties were quantified as the standard deviation of the mean obtained for all RCMs in each location and differed greatly between winter (wheat) and summer (maize) seasons, being smaller in the latter.     

A Demonstration of the Uncertainty in Projections of UK Climate Change Resulting from Regional Model Formulation

Regional climate models (RCMs) are now commonly used to downscale climate change projections provided by global coupled models to resolutions that can be utilised at national and finer scales. Although this extra tier of complexity adds significant value, it inevitably contributes a further source of uncertainty, due to the regional modelling uncertainties involved. Here, an initial attempt is made to estimate the uncertainty that arises from typical variations in RCM formulation, focussing on changes in UK surface air temperature (SAT) and precipitation projected for the late twenty-first century. Data are provided by a relatively large suite of RCM and global model integrations with widely varying formulations. It is found that uncertainty in the formulation of the RCM has a relatively small, but non-negligible, impact on the range of possible outcomes of future UK seasonal mean climate. This uncertainty is largest in the summer season. It is also similar in magnitude to that of large-scale internal variations of the coupled climate system, and for SAT, it is less than the uncertainty due to the emissions scenario, whereas for precipitation it is probably larger. The largest source of uncertainty, for both variables and in all seasons, is the formulation of the global coupled model. The scale-dependency of uncertainty due to RCM formulation is also explored by considering its impact on projections of the difference in climate change between the north and south of the UK. Finally, the implications for the reliability of UK seasonal mean climate change projections are discussed.     

GCM-based regional temperature and precipitation change estimates for Europe under four SRES scenarios applying a super-ensemble pattern-scaling method

Seasonal GCM-based temperature and precipitation projections for the end of the 21st century are presented for five European regions; projections are compared with corresponding estimates given by the PRUDENCE RCMs. For most of the six global GCMs studied, only responses to the SRES A2 and B2 forcing scenarios are available. To formulate projections for the A1FI and B1 forcing scenarios, a super-ensemble pattern-scaling technique has been developed. This method uses linear regression to represent the relationship between the local GCM-simulated response and the global mean temperature change simulated by a simple climate model. The method has several advantages: e.g., the noise caused by internal variability is reduced, and the information provided by GCM runs performed with various forcing scenarios is utilized effectively. The super-ensemble method proved especially useful when only one A2 and one B2 simulation is available for an individual GCM. Next, 95% probability intervals were constructed for regional temperature and precipitation change, separately for the four forcing scenarios, by fitting a normal distribution to the set of projections calculated by the GCMs. For the high-end of the A1FI uncertainty interval, temperature increases close to 10°C could be expected in the southern European summer and northern European winter. Conversely, the low-end warming estimates for the B1 scenario are ~ 1°C. The uncertainty intervals of precipitation change are quite broad, but the mean estimate is one of a marked increase in the north in winter and a drastic reduction in the south in summer. In the RCM simulations driven by a single global model, the spread of the temperature and precipitation projections tends to be smaller than that in the GCM simulations, but it is possible to reduce this disparity by employing several driving models for all RCMs. In the present suite of simulations, the difference between the mean GCM and RCM projections is fairly small, regardless of the number or driving models applied.     

On interpreting hydrological change from regional climate models

Although representation of hydrology is included in all regional climate models (RCMs), the utility of hydrological results from RCMs varies considerably from model to model. Studies to evaluate and compare the hydrological components of a suite of RCMs and their use in assessing hydrological impacts from future climate change were carried out over Europe. This included using different methods to transfer RCM runoff directly to river discharge and coupling different RCMs to offline hydrological models using different methods to transfer the climate change signal between models. The work focused on drainage areas to the Baltic Basin, the Bothnian Bay Basin and the Rhine Basin. A total of 20 anthropogenic climate change scenario simulations from 11 different RCMs were used. One conclusion is that choice of GCM (global climate model) has a larger impact on projected hydrological change than either selection of emissions scenario or RCM used for downscaling.     

Temperature scenarios for Norway: from regional to local scale

Scenarios with daily time resolution are frequently used in research on the impacts of climate change. These are traditionally developed by regional climate models (RCMs). The spatial resolution, however, is usually too coarse for local climate change analysis, especially in regions with complex topography, such as Norway. The RCM used, HIRHAM, is run with lateral boundary forcing provided from two global medium resolution models; the ECHAM4/OPYC3 from MPI and the HadAM3H from the Hadley centre. The first is run with IPCC SRES emission scenario B2, the latter is run with IPCC SRES emission scenarios A2 and B2. All three scenarios represent the future time period 2071–2100. Both models have a control run, representing the present climate (1961–1990). Daily temperature scenarios are interpolated from HIRHAM to Norwegian temperature stations. The at-site HIRHAM-temperatures, both for the control and scenario runs, are adjusted to be locally representative. Mean monthly values and standard deviations based on daily values of the adjusted HIRHAM-temperatures, as well as the cumulative distribution curve of daily seasonal temperatures, are conclusive with observations for the control period. Residual kriging are used on the adjusted daily HIRHAM-temperatures to obtain high spatial temperature scenarios. Mean seasonal temperature grids are obtained. By adjusting the control runs and scenarios and improving the spatial resolution of the scenarios, the absolute temperature values are representative at a local scale. The scenarios indicate larger warming in winter than in summer in the Scandinavian regions. A marked west–east and south–north gradient is projected for Norway, where the largest increase is in eastern and northern regions. The temperature of the coldest winter days is projected to increase more than the warmer temperatures.     

Projections of climate change impacts on river flood conditions in Germany by combining three different RCMs with a regional eco-hydrological model

A general increase in precipitation has been observed in Germany in the last century, and potential changes in flood generation and intensity are now at the focus of interest. The aim of the paper is twofold: a) to project the future flood conditions in Germany accounting for various river regimes (from pluvial to nival-pluvial regimes) and under different climate scenarios (the high, A2, low, B1, and medium, A1B, emission scenarios) and b) to investigate sources of uncertainty generated by climate input data and regional climate models. Data of two dynamical Regional Climate Models (RCMs), REMO (REgional Model) and CCLM (Cosmo-Climate Local Model), and one statistical-empirical RCM, Wettreg (Wetterlagenbasierte Regionalisierungsmethode: weather-type based regionalization method), were applied to drive the eco-hydrological model SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated Model), which was previously validated for 15 gauges in Germany. At most of the gauges, the 95 and 99 percentiles of the simulated discharge using SWIM with observed climate data had a good agreement with the observed discharge for 1961–2000 (deviation within ±10 %). However, the simulated discharge had a bias when using RCM climate as input for the same period. Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributions were fitted to the annual maximum series of river runoff for each realization for the control and scenario periods, and the changes in flood generation over the whole simulation time were analyzed. The 50-year flood values estimated for two scenario periods (2021–2060, 2061–2100) were compared to the ones derived from the control period using the same climate models. The results driven by the statistical-empirical model show a declining trend in the flood level for most rivers, and under all climate scenarios. The simulations driven by dynamical models give various change directions depending on region, scenario and time period. The uncertainty in estimating high flows and, in particular, extreme floods remains high, due to differences in regional climate models, emission scenarios and multi-realizations generated by RCMs.     

Future projections and uncertainty assessment of extreme rainfall intensity in the United States from an ensemble of climate models

Changes in climate are expected to lead to changes in the characteristics extreme rainfall frequency and intensity. In this study, we propose an integrated approach to explore potential changes in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) relationships. The approach incorporates uncertainties due to both the short simulation periods of regional climate models (RCMs) and the differences in IDF curves derived from multiple RCMs in the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP). The approach combines the likelihood of individual RCMs according to the goodness of fit between the extreme rainfall intensities from the RCMs’ historic runs and those from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) data set and Bayesian model averaging (BMA) to assess uncertainty in IDF predictions. We also partition overall uncertainties into within-model uncertainty and among-model uncertainty. Results illustrate that among-model uncertainty is the dominant source of the overall uncertainty in simulating extreme rainfall for multiple locations in the U.S., pointing to the difficulty of predicting future climate, especially extreme rainfall regimes. For all locations a more intense extreme rainfall occurs in future climate; however the rate of increase varies among locations.     

Projection of fire potential to future climate scenarios in the Alpine area: some methodological considerations

In Europe, wildfires are an issue not only for the Mediterranean area, but also in the Alpine regions in terms of increasing number of events and severity. In this study we evaluate the impact of climate change on the fire potential in the Alps in the past and in future scenarios. The Fine Fuel Moisture Code (FFMC) of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System, which successfully distinguishes among recorded fire/no fire events, is applied to projections of Regional Climate Models (RCMs) calculated on the SRES scenario A1B. We compare two different techniques: 1) a single model run of the COSMO-CLM RCM at 18 km resolution, and 2) a combination of 25-km resolution RCMs from the ENSEMBLES project, combined with the Multimodel SuperEnsemble technique and a new probabilistic Multimodel SuperEnsemble Dressing. The single-model RCM allows for a greater coherence among the input parameters, while the Multimodel techniques permit to reduce the model biases and to downscale to a higher resolution where long term records of observations are available. The projected changes with the Multimodel in the scenario give an estimation of increasing wildfire potential in the mid XXI century. In particular the frequency of severe wildfire potential days is shown to increase dramatically. The single (independent) COSMO model gives a weaker signal and in some regions of the study area the predicted changes are opposite to the ones by the Multimodel. This is mainly due to increasing precipitation amounts simulated especially in the northern parts of the Alps. However, there are also some individual models included in the Multimodel ensemble that show a similar signal. This confirms the ambiguity of any impact study based on a single climate model due to the uncertainty of the projections of the climate models.     

A study on combining global and regional climate model results for generating climate scenarios of temperature and precipitation for the Netherlands

Climate scenarios for the Netherlands are constructed by combining information from global and regional climate models employing a simplified, conceptual framework of three sources (levels) of uncertainty impacting on predictions of the local climate. In this framework, the first level of uncertainty is determined by the global radiation balance, resulting in a range of the projected changes in the global mean temperature. On the regional (1,000–5,000 km) scale, the response of the atmospheric circulation determines the second important level of uncertainty. The third level of uncertainty, acting mainly on a local scale of 10 (and less) to 1,000 km, is related to the small-scale processes, like for example those acting in atmospheric convection, clouds and atmospheric meso-scale circulations—processes that play an important role in extreme events which are highly relevant for society. Global climate models (GCMs) are the main tools to quantify the first two levels of uncertainty, while high resolution regional climate models (RCMs) are more suitable to quantify the third level. Along these lines, results of an ensemble of RCMs, driven by only two GCM boundaries and therefore spanning only a rather narrow range in future climate predictions, are rescaled to obtain a broader uncertainty range. The rescaling is done by first disentangling the climate change response in the RCM simulations into a part related to the circulation, and a residual part which is related to the global temperature rise. Second, these responses are rescaled using the range of the predictions of global temperature change and circulation change from five GCMs. These GCMs have been selected on their ability to simulate the present-day circulation, in particular over Europe. For the seasonal means, the rescaled RCM results obey the range in the GCM ensemble using a high and low emission scenario. Thus, the rescaled RCM results are consistent with the GCM results for the means, while adding information on the small scales and the extremes. The method can be interpreted as a combined statistical–dynamical downscaling approach, with the statistical relations based on regional model output.     

Gradient in the climate change signal of European discharge predicted by a multi-model ensemble

In order to perform hydrological studies on the PRUDENCE regional climate model (RCM) simulations, a special focus was put on the discharge from large river catchments located in northern and central Europe. The discharge was simulated with a simplified land surface (SL) scheme and the Hydrological Discharge (HD) model. The daily fields of precipitation, 2 m temperature and evapotranspiration from the RCM simulations were used as forcing. Therefore the total catchment water balances are constrained by the hydrological cycle of the different RCMs. The validation of the simulated hydrological cycle from the control simulations shows that the multi-model ensemble mean is closer to the observations than each of the models, especially if different catchments and hydrological variables are considered. Therefore, the multi-model ensemble mean can be used to largely reduce the uncertainty that is introduced by a single RCM. This also provides more confidence in the future projections for the multi-model ensemble means. The scenario simulations predict a gradient in the climate change signal over Northern and Central Europe. Common features are the overall warming and the general increase of evapotranspiration. But while in the northern parts the warming will enhance the hydrological cycle leading to an increased discharge, the large warming, especially in the summer, will slow down the hydrological cycle caused by a drying in the central parts of Europe which is accompanied by a reduction of discharge. The comparison of the changes predicted by the multi-model ensemble mean to the changes predicted by the driving GCM indicates that the RCMs can compensate problems that a driving GCM may have with local scale processes or parameterizations.     

Can ensembles of regional climate model simulations improve results from sensitivity studies?

Intrinsic variability (IV) in regional climate models (RCMs) is often assumed to be small because at climatological timescales, the model solutions tend to be dominated by the model??s lateral boundary conditions. Recent studies have indicated that this IV may actually be large in certain instances for some variables. Direct interpretation of anomalies from RCM sensitivity studies relies on the assumption that differences between model simulations are entirely due to a physical forcing. However, if IV is as large or larger than the physical signal, then this assumption is violated. Using a 20 member ensemble of RCM simulations, we verify that IV of precipitation within a RCM can be large enough to violate the sensitivity study assumption, and we show that generating ensembles of simulations can help reduce the level of IV. We also present two indicators that can rule out the influence of IV when it is ambiguous whether anomalies within a sensitivity study are due to the sensitivity perturbation or whether they are due to IV.     

Assessing the influence of climate model uncertainty on EU-wide climate change impact indicators

Despite an increasing understanding of potential climate change impacts in Europe, the associated uncertainties remain a key challenge. In many impact studies, the assessment of uncertainties is underemphasised, or is not performed quantitatively. A key source of uncertainty is the variability of climate change projections across different regional climate models (RCMs) forced by different global circulation models (GCMs). This study builds upon an indicator-based NUTS-2 level assessment that quantified potential changes for three climate-related hazards: heat stress, river flood risk, and forest fire risk, based on five GCM/RCM combinations, and non-climatic factors. First, a sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the fractional contribution of each single input factor to the spatial variance of the hazard indicators, followed by an evaluation of uncertainties in terms of spread in hazard indicator values due to inter-model climate variability, with respect to (changes in) impacts for the period 2041–70. The results show that different GCM/RCM combinations lead to substantially varying impact indicators across all three hazards. Furthermore, a strong influence of inter-model variability on the spatial patterns of uncertainties is revealed. For instance, for river flood risk, uncertainties appear to be particularly high in the Mediterranean, whereas model agreement is higher for central Europe. The findings allow for a hazard-specific identification of areas with low vs. high model agreement (and thus confidence of projected impacts) within Europe, which is of key importance for decision makers when prioritising adaptation options.     

The WAMME regional model intercomparison study

Results from five regional climate models (RCMs) participating in the West African Monsoon Modeling and Evaluation (WAMME) initiative are analyzed. The RCMs were driven by boundary conditions from National Center for Environmental Prediction reanalysis II data sets and observed sea-surface temperatures (SST) over four May–October seasons, (2000 and 2003–2005). In addition, the simulations were repeated with two of the RCMs, except that lateral boundary conditions were derived from a continuous global climate model (GCM) simulation forced with observed SST data. RCM and GCM simulations of precipitation, surface air temperature and circulation are compared to each other and to observational evidence. Results demonstrate a range of RCM skill in representing the mean summer climate and the timing of monsoon onset. Four of the five models generate positive precipitation biases and all simulate negative surface air temperature biases over broad areas. RCM spatial patterns of June–September mean precipitation over the Sahel achieve spatial correlations with observational analyses of about 0.90, but within two areas south of 10°N the correlations average only about 0.44. The mean spatial correlation coefficient between RCM and observed surface air temperature over West Africa is 0.88. RCMs show a range of skill in simulating seasonal mean zonal wind and meridional moisture advection and two RCMs overestimate moisture convergence over West Africa. The 0.5° computing grid enables three RCMs to detect local minima related to high topography in seasonal mean meridional moisture advection. Sensitivity to lateral boundary conditions differs between the two RCMs for which this was assessed. The benefits of dynamic downscaling the GCM seasonal climate prediction are analyzed and discussed.     

Evaluation of the CORDEX-Africa multi-RCM hindcast: systematic model errors

Monthly-mean precipitation, mean (T_AVG), maximum (T_MAX) and minimum (T_MIN) surface air temperatures, and cloudiness from the CORDEX-Africa regional climate model (RCM) hindcast experiment are evaluated for model skill and systematic biases. All RCMs simulate basic climatological features of these variables reasonably, but systematic biases also occur across these models. All RCMs show higher fidelity in simulating precipitation for the west part of Africa than for the east part, and for the tropics than for northern Sahara. Interannual variation in the wet season rainfall is better simulated for the western Sahel than for the Ethiopian Highlands. RCM skill is higher for T_AVG and T_MAX than for T_MIN, and regionally, for the subtropics than for the tropics. RCM skill in simulating cloudiness is generally lower than for precipitation or temperatures. For all variables, multi-model ensemble (ENS) generally outperforms individual models included in ENS. An overarching conclusion in this study is that some model biases vary systematically for regions, variables, and metrics, posing difficulties in defining a single representative index to measure model fidelity, especially for constructing ENS. This is an important concern in climate change impact assessment studies because most assessment models are run for specific regions/sectors with forcing data derived from model outputs. Thus, model evaluation and ENS construction must be performed separately for regions, variables, and metrics as required by specific analysis and/or assessments. Evaluations using multiple reference datasets reveal that cross-examination, quality control, and uncertainty estimates of reference data are crucial in model evaluations.     

Evaluating climate change at the Croatian Adriatic from observations and regional climate models’ simulations

The 2m temperature (T2m) and precipitation from five regional climate models (RCMs), which participated in the ENSEMBLES project and were integrated at a 25-km horizontal resolution, are compared with observed climatological data from 13 stations located in the Croatian coastal zone. The twentieth century climate was simulated by forcing RCMs with identical boundary conditions from the ERA-40 reanalysis and the ECHAM5/MPI-OM global climate model (GCM); climate change in the twenty-first century is based on the A1B scenario and assessed from the GCM-forced RCMs’ integrations. When forced by ERA-40, most RCMs exhibit cold bias in winter which contributes to an overestimation of the T2m annual cycle amplitude and the errors in interannual variability are in all RCMs smaller than those in the climatological mean. All models underestimate observed warming trends in the period 1951–2010. The largest precipitation biases coincide with locations/seasons with small observed amounts but large precipitation amounts near high orography are relatively well reproduced. When forced by the same GCM all RCMs exhibit a warming in the cold half-year and a cooling (or weak warming) in the warm period, implying a strong impact of GCM boundary forcing. The future eastern Adriatic climate is characterised by a warming, up to +5 °C towards the end of the twenty-first century; for precipitation, no clear signal is evident in the first half of the twenty-first century, but a reduction in precipitation during summer prevails in the second half. It is argued that land-sea contrast and complex coastal configuration of the Croatian coast, i.e. multitude of island and well indented coastline, have a major impact on small-scale variability. Orography plays important role only at small number of coastal locations. We hypothesise that the parameterisations related to land surface processes and soil hydrology have relatively stronger impact on variability than orography at those locations that include a relatively large fraction of land (most coastal stations), but affecting less strongly locations at the Adriatic islands.     

Uncertainties in projected impacts of climate change on European agriculture and terrestrial ecosystems based on scenarios from regional climate models

The uncertainties and sources of variation in projected impacts of climate change on agriculture and terrestrial ecosystems depend not only on the emission scenarios and climate models used for projecting future climates, but also on the impact models used, and the local soil and climatic conditions of the managed or unmanaged ecosystems under study. We addressed these uncertainties by applying different impact models at site, regional and continental scales, and by separating the variation in simulated relative changes in ecosystem performance into the different sources of uncertainty and variation using analyses of variance. The crop and ecosystem models used output from a range of global and regional climate models (GCMs and RCMs) projecting climate change over Europe between 1961–1990 and 2071–2100 under the IPCC SRES scenarios. The projected impacts on productivity of crops and ecosystems included the direct effects of increased CO₂ concentration on photosynthesis. The variation in simulated results attributed to differences between the climate models were, in all cases, smaller than the variation attributed to either emission scenarios or local conditions. The methods used for applying the climate model outputs played a larger role than the choice of the GCM or RCM. The thermal suitability for grain maize cultivation in Europe was estimated to expand by 30–50% across all SRES emissions scenarios. Strong increases in net primary productivity (NPP) (35–54%) were projected in northern European ecosystems as a result of a longer growing season and higher CO₂ concentrations. Changing water balance dominated the projected responses of southern European ecosystems, with NPP declining or increasing only slightly relative to present-day conditions. Both site and continental scale models showed large increases in yield of rain-fed winter wheat for northern Europe, with smaller increases or even decreases in southern Europe. Site-based, regional and continental scale models showed large spatial variations in the response of nitrate leaching from winter wheat cultivation to projected climate change due to strong interactions with soils and climate. The variation in simulated impacts was smaller between scenarios based on RCMs nested within the same GCM than between scenarios based on different GCMs or between emission scenarios.     

Climate change scenarios of precipitation extremes in Central Europe from ENSEMBLES regional climate models

The study examines future scenarios of precipitation extremes over Central Europe in an ensemble of 12 regional climate model (RCM) simulations with the 25-km resolution, carried out within the European project ENSEMBLES. We apply the region-of-influence method as a pooling scheme when estimating distributions of extremes, which consists in incorporating data from a ‘region’ (set of gridboxes) when fitting an extreme value distribution in any single gridbox. The method reduces random variations in the estimates of parameters of the extreme value distribution that result from large spatial variability of heavy precipitation. Although spatial patterns differ among the models, most RCMs simulate increases in high quantiles of precipitation amounts when averaged over the area for the late-twenty-first century (2070–2099) climate in both winter and summer. The sign as well as the magnitude of the projected change vary only little for individual parts of the distribution of daily precipitation in winter. In summer, on the other hand, the projected changes increase with the quantile of the distribution in all RCMs, and they are negative (positive) for parts of the distribution below (above) the 98% quantile if averaged over the RCMs. The increases in precipitation extremes in summer are projected in spite of a pronounced drying in most RCMs. Although a rather general qualitative agreement of the models concerning the projected changes of precipitation extremes is found in both winter and summer, the uncertainties in climate change scenarios remain large and would likely further increase considerably if a more complete ensemble of RCM simulations driven by a larger suite of global models and with a range of possible scenarios of the radiative forcing is available.