Assessing climate change impacts on hydrology from an ensemble of regional climate models,model scales and linking methods – a case study on the Lule River basin

This paper investigates how using different regional climate model (RCM) simulations affects climate change impacts on hydrology in northern Europe using an offline hydrological model. Climate change scenarios from an ensemble of seven RCMs, two global climate models (GCMs), two global emissions scenarios and two RCMs of varying resolution were used. A total of 15 climate change simulations were included in studies on the Lule River basin in Northern Sweden. Two different approaches to transfer climate change from the RCMs to hydrological models were tested. A rudimentary estimate of change in hydropower potential on the Lule River due to climate change was also made. The results indicate an overall increase in river flow, earlier spring peak flows and an increase in hydropower potential. The two approaches for transferring the signal of climate change to the hydrological impacts model gave similar mean results, but considerably different seasonal dynamics, a result that is highly relevant for other types of climate change impacts studies.     

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.     

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.     

Dynamical downscaling: Fundamental issues from an NWP point of view and recommendations

Dynamical downscaling has been recognized as a useful tool not only for the climate community, but also for associated application communities such as the environmental and hydrological societies. Although climate projection data are available in lower-resolution general circulation models (GCMs), higher-resolution climate projections using regional climate models (RCMs) have been obtained over various regions of the globe. Various model outputs from RCMs with a high resolution of even as high as a few km have become available with heavy weight on applications. However, from a scientific point of view in numerical atmospheric modeling, it is not clear how to objectively judge the degree of added value in the RCM output against the corresponding GCM results. A key factor responsible for skepticism is based on the fundamental limitations in the nesting approach between GCMs and RCMs. In this article, we review the current status of the dynamical downscaling for climate prediction, focusing on basic assumptions that are scrutinized from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) point of view. Uncertainties in downscaling due to the inconsistencies in the physics packages between GCMs and RCMs were revealed. Recommendations on how to tackle the ultimate goal of dynamical downscaling were also described.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Climate change projections of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP)

We investigate major results of the NARCCAP multiple regional climate model (RCM) experiments driven by multiple global climate models (GCMs) regarding climate change for seasonal temperature and precipitation over North America. We focus on two major questions: How do the RCM simulated climate changes differ from those of the parent GCMs and thus affect our perception of climate change over North America, and how important are the relative contributions of RCMs and GCMs to the uncertainty (variance explained) for different seasons and variables? The RCMs tend to produce stronger climate changes for precipitation: larger increases in the northern part of the domain in winter and greater decreases across a swath of the central part in summer, compared to the four GCMs driving the regional models as well as to the full set of CMIP3 GCM results. We pose some possible process-level mechanisms for the difference in intensity of change, particularly for summer. Detailed process-level studies will be necessary to establish mechanisms and credibility of these results. The GCMs explain more variance for winter temperature and the RCMs for summer temperature. The same is true for precipitation patterns. Thus, we recommend that future RCM-GCM experiments over this region include a balanced number of GCMs and RCMs.     

Evaluation of water and energy budgets in regional climate models applied over Europe

This study presents a model intercomparison of four regional climate models (RCMs) and one variable resolution atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) applied over Europe with special focus on the hydrological cycle and the surface energy budget. The models simulated the 15 years from 1979 to 1993 by using quasi-observed boundary conditions derived from ECMWF re-analyses (ERA). The model intercomparison focuses on two large atchments representing two different climate conditions covering two areas of major research interest within Europe. The first is the Danube catchment which represents a continental climate dominated by advection from the surrounding land areas. It is used to analyse the common model error of a too dry and too warm simulation of the summertime climate of southeastern Europe. This summer warming and drying problem is seen in many RCMs, and to a less extent in GCMs. The second area is the Baltic Sea catchment which represents maritime climate dominated by advection from the ocean and from the Baltic Sea. This catchment is a research area of many studies within Europe and also covered by the BALTEX program. The observed data used are monthly mean surface air temperature, precipitation and river discharge. For all models, these are used to estimate mean monthly biases of all components of the hydrological cycle over land. In addition, the mean monthly deviations of the surface energy fluxes from ERA data are computed. Atmospheric moisture fluxes from ERA are compared with those of one model to provide an independent estimate of the convergence bias derived from the observed data. These help to add weight to some of the inferred estimates and explain some of the discrepancies between them. An evaluation of these biases and deviations suggests possible sources of error in each of the models. For the Danube catchment, systematic errors in the dynamics cause the prominent summer drying problem for three of the RCMs, while for the fourth RCM this is related to deficiencies in the land surface parametrization. The AGCM does not show this drying problem. For the Baltic Sea catchment, all models similarily overestimate the precipitation throughout the year except during the summer. This model deficit is probably caused by the internal model parametrizations, such as the large-scale condensation and the convection schemes.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Model Outputs

Six approaches for downscaling climate model outputs for use in hydrologic simulation were evaluated, with particular emphasis on each method's ability to produce precipitation and other variables used to drive a macroscale hydrology model applied at much higher spatial resolution than the climate model. Comparisons were made on the basis of a twenty-year retrospective (1975–1995) climate simulation produced by the NCAR-DOE Parallel ClimateModel (PCM), and the implications of the comparison for a future(2040–2060) PCM climate scenario were also explored. The six approaches were made up of three relatively simple statistical downscaling methods – linear interpolation (LI), spatial disaggregation (SD), and bias-correction and spatial disaggregation (BCSD) – each applied to both PCM output directly(at T42 spatial resolution), and after dynamical downscaling via a Regional Climate Model (RCM – at 1/2-degree spatial resolution), for downscaling the climate model outputs to the 1/8-degree spatial resolution of the hydrological model. For the retrospective climate simulation, results were compared to an observed gridded climatology of temperature and precipitation, and gridded hydrologic variables resulting from forcing the hydrologic model with observations. The most significant findings are that the BCSD method was successful in reproducing the main features of the observed hydrometeorology from the retrospective climate simulation, when applied to both PCM and RCM outputs. Linear interpolation produced better results using RCM output than PCM output, but both methods (PCM-LI and RCM-LI) lead to unacceptably biased hydrologic simulations. Spatial disaggregation of the PCM output produced results similar to those achieved with the RCM interpolated output; nonetheless, neither PCM nor RCM output was useful for hydrologic simulation purposes without a bias-correction step. For the future climate scenario, only the BCSD-method (using PCM or RCM) was able to produce hydrologically plausible results. With the BCSD method, the RCM-derived hydrology was more sensitive to climate change than the PCM-derived hydrology.     

A multi-model ensemble of downscaled spatial climate change scenarios for the Dommel catchment, Western Europe

Regional or local scale hydrological impact studies require high resolution climate change scenarios which should incorporate some assessment of uncertainties in future climate projections. This paper describes a method used to produce a multi-model ensemble of multivariate weather simulations including spatial–temporal rainfall scenarios and single-site temperature and potential evapotranspiration scenarios for hydrological impact assessment in the Dommel catchment (1,350 km²) in The Netherlands and Belgium. A multi-site stochastic rainfall model combined with a rainfall conditioned weather generator have been used for the first time with the change factor approach to downscale projections of change derived from eight Regional Climate Model (RCM) experiments for the SRES A2 emission scenario for the period 2071–2100. For winter, all downscaled scenarios show an increase in mean daily precipitation (catchment average change of +9% to +40%) and typically an increase in the proportion of wet days, while for summer a decrease in mean daily precipitation (−16% to −57%) and proportion of wet days is projected. The range of projected mean temperature is 7.7°C to 9.1°C for winter and 19.9°C to 23.3°C for summer, relative to means for the control period (1961–1990) of 3.8°C and 16.8°C, respectively. Mean annual potential evapotranspiration is projected to increase by between +17% and +36%. The magnitude and seasonal distribution of changes in the downscaled climate change projections are strongly influenced by the General Circulation Model (GCM) providing boundary conditions for the RCM experiments. Therefore, a multi-model ensemble of climate change scenarios based on different RCMs and GCMs provides more robust estimates of precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration for hydrological impact assessments, at both regional and local scale.     

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.     

Validation of climate model output using Bayesian statistical methods

The growing interest in and emphasis on high spatial resolution estimates of future climate has demonstrated the need to apply regional climate models (RCMs) to that problem. As a consequence, the need for validation of these models, an assessment of how well an RCM reproduces a known climate, has also grown. Validation is often performed by comparing RCM output to gridded climate datasets and/or station data. The primary disadvantage of using gridded climate datasets is that the spatial resolution is almost always different and generally coarser than climate model output. We have used a Bayesian statistical model derived from observational data to validate RCM output. We used surface air temperature (SAT) data from 109 observational stations in California, all with records of approximately 50 years in length, and created a statistical model based on this data. The statistical model takes into account the elevation of the station, distance from coastline, and the NOAA climate region in which the station resides. Analysis indicates that the statistical model provides reliable estimates of the mean monthly SAT at any given station. In our method, the uncertainty in the estimates produced by the statistical model are directly determined by obtaining probability density functions for predicted SATs. This statistical model is then used to estimate average SATs corresponding to each of the climate model grid cells. These estimates are compared to the output of the RCM to assess how well the RCM matches the observed climate as defined by the statistical model. Overall, the match between the RCM output and the statistical model is good, with some deficiencies likely due in part to the representation of topography in the RCM.     

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.     

An intercomparison of regional climate simulations for Europe: assessing uncertainties in model projections

Ten regional climate models (RCM) have been integrated with the standard forcings of the PRUDENCE experiment: IPCC-SRES A2 radiative forcing and Hadley Centre boundary conditions. The response over Europe, calculated as the difference between the 2071–2100 and the 1961–1990 means can be viewed as an expected value about which various uncertainties exist. Uncertainties are measured here by variance in eight sub-European boxes. Four sources of uncertainty can be evaluated with the material provided by the PRUDENCE project. Sampling uncertainty is due to the fact that the model climate is estimated as an average over a finite number of years (30). Model uncertainty is due to the fact that the models use different techniques to discretize the equations and to represent sub-grid effects. Radiative uncertainty is due to the fact that IPCC-SRES A2 is merely one hypothesis. Some RCMs have been run with another scenario of greenhouse gas concentration (IPCC-SRES B2). Boundary uncertainty is due to the fact that the regional models have been run under the constraint of the same global model. Some RCMs have been run with other boundary forcings. The contribution of the different sources varies according to the field, the region and the season, but the role of boundary forcing is generally greater than the role of the RCM, in particular for temperature. Maps of minimum expected 2m temperature and precipitation responses for the IPCC-A2 scenario show that, despite the above mentioned uncertainties, the signal from the PRUDENCE ensemble is significant.     

An integrated approach to assessing 21st century climate change over the contiguous U.S. using the NARCCAP RCM output

We utilize a revised Thornthwaite climate classification system for model intercomparisons and to visualize future climate change. This classification system uses an improved moisture factor that accounts for both evapotranspiration and precipitation, a thermal index based on potential evapotranspiration, and even intervals between categories for ease of interpretation. The use of climate types is a robust way to assess a model’s ability to reproduce mutlivariate conditions. We compare output from multiple regional climate models (RCMs) participating in NARCCAP (North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program) as well as their coarser driving general circulation models (GCMs). Overall, the RCM ensemble does a good job in reproducing the main features of U.S. climate types. The “added-value” gained by downscaling with RCMs is significant, particularly in topographic regions such as the west coast and Appalachian Mountains. Ensemble model output from the scenario simulations indicates a recession of cold climate zones across the eastern U.S. and northern tier of the country as well as in mountainous areas. Projections also indicate the development of a novel climate zone, the torrid climate, across southern portions of the country. In addition, the U.S. will become drier, particularly across the Midwest as the moisture boundary shifts eastward, and in the the Appalachian region. Climate types in the Pacific Northwest, however, will not change greatly. Finally, we demonstrate possible applications for the forecast climate types and associated output variables.     

High resolution regional climate model simulations for Germany: Part II—projected climate changes

The projected climate change signals of a five-member high resolution ensemble, based on two global climate models (GCMs: ECHAM5 and CCCma3) and two regional climate models (RCMs: CLM and WRF) are analysed in this paper (Part II of a two part paper). In Part I the performance of the models for the control period are presented. The RCMs use a two nest procedure over Europe and Germany with a final spatial resolution of 7 km to downscale the GCM simulations for the present (1971–2000) and future A1B scenario (2021–2050) time periods. The ensemble was extended by earlier simulations with the RCM REMO (driven by ECHAM5, two realisations) at a slightly coarser resolution. The climate change signals are evaluated and tested for significance for mean values and the seasonal cycles of temperature and precipitation, as well as for the intensity distribution of precipitation and the numbers of dry days and dry periods. All GCMs project a significant warming over Europe on seasonal and annual scales and the projected warming of the GCMs is retained in both nests of the RCMs, however, with added small variations. The mean warming over Germany of all ensemble members for the fine nest is in the range of 0.8 and 1.3 K with an average of 1.1 K. For mean annual precipitation the climate change signal varies in the range of ?2 to 9 % over Germany within the ensemble. Changes in the number of wet days are projected in the range of ±4 % on the annual scale for the future time period. For the probability distribution of precipitation intensity, a decrease of lower intensities and an increase of moderate and higher intensities is projected by most ensemble members. For the mean values, the results indicate that the projected temperature change signal is caused mainly by the GCM and its initial condition (realisation), with little impact from the RCM. For precipitation, in addition, the RCM affects the climate change signal significantly.