Climate Dynamics

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 357–375

Frequency distributions of transient regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles of general circulation model simulations

  • G. R. Harris
  • D. M. H. Sexton
  • B. B. B. Booth
  • M. Collins
  • J. M. Murphy
  • M. J. Webb
Article

Abstract

Large ensembles of coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) simulations are required to explore modelling uncertainty and make probabilistic predictions of future transient climate change at regional scales. These are not yet computationally feasible so we have developed a technique to emulate the response of such an ensemble by scaling equilibrium patterns of climate change derived from much cheaper “slab” model ensembles in which the atmospheric component of an AOGCM is coupled to a mixed-layer ocean. Climate feedback parameters are diagnosed for each member of a slab model ensemble and used to drive an energy balance model (EBM) to predict the time-dependent response of global surface temperature expected for different combinations of uncertain AOGCM parameters affecting atmospheric, land and sea-ice processes. The EBM projections are then used to scale normalised patterns of change derived for each slab member, and hence emulate the response of the relevant atmospheric model version when coupled to a dynamic ocean, in response to a 1% per annum increase in CO2. The emulated responses are validated by comparison with predictions from a 17 member ensemble of AOGCM simulations, constructed from variants of HadCM3 using the same parameter combinations as 17 members of the slab model ensemble. Cross-validation permits estimation of the spatial and temporal dependence of emulation error, and also allows estimation of a correction field to correct discrepancies between the scaled equilibrium patterns and the transient response, reducing the emulation error. Emulated transient responses and their associated errors are obtained from the slab ensemble for 129 pseudo-HadCM3 versions containing multiple atmospheric parameter perturbations. These are combined to produce regional frequency distributions for the transient response of annual surface temperature change and boreal winter precipitation change. The technique can be extended to any surface climate variable demonstrating a scaleable, approximately linear response to forcing.

References

  1. Annan JD, Hargreaves JC, Ohgaito R, Abe-Ouchi A, Emori S (2005) Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with paleoclimate simulations. SOLA 1:181–184, http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/sola Google Scholar
  2. Collins M, Booth BBB, Harris GR, Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Webb MJ (2006) Towards quantifying uncertainty in transient climate change. Clim Dynam (in press). DOI 10.1007/s00382-006-0121-0Google Scholar
  3. Cubasch U, Meehl GA, Boer GJ, Stouffer RJ, Dix M, Noda A, Senior CA, Raper S, Yap KS (2001) Projections of future climate change, In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the 3rd assessment report of the IPCC, pp 525–582, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 881Google Scholar
  4. Currin C, Mitchell TJ, Morris M, Ylvisaker D (1991) Bayesian prediction of deterministic functions, with application to the design and analysis of computer experiments. J Am Stat Assoc 86:953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Furrer R, Sain SR, Nychka D, Meehl GA (2006) Multivariate Bayesian analysis of atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Environ Ecol Stat (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Giorgi F, Francisco R (2000a) Uncertainties in regional climate change predictions. A regional analysis of ensemble simulations with the HadCM2 GCM. Clim Dynam 16:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giorgi F, Francisco R (2000b) Evaluating uncertainties in prediction of regional climate change. Geophys Res Lett 27:1295–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Good P, Lowe J (2006) Emergent behaviour and uncertainty in multi-model climate projections of precipitation trends at small spatial scales. J Clim (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Gordon C, Cooper CA, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dynam 16:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffert MI, Callegari AJ, Hsieh CT (1980) The role of deep sea heat storage in the secular response to climatic forcing. J Geophys Res 85:6667–6679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huntingford C, Cox PM (2000) An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim Dynam 16:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johns TC, Gregory JM, Ingram WJ, Johnson CE, Jones A, Lowe JA, Mitchell JFB, Roberts DL, Sexton DMH, Stevenson DS, Tett SFB, Woodage MJ (2003) Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios. Clim Dynam 20:583–612Google Scholar
  13. Mitchell T (2003) Pattern scaling. Climatic Change 60:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell JFB, Johns TC, Eagles M, Ingram WJ, Davis RA (1999) Towards the construction of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 41:547–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy JM (1995) Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean-atmosphere model to increasing carbon dioxide. Part III: analysis of global-mean response using simple models. J Climate 8:496–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DJ (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nakicenovic NJ Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenham J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY, Kram T La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Raihi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z, (2000) Emissions scenarios. A special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 599Google Scholar
  18. Pittock AB, Jones RN, Mitchell CD (2001) Probabilities will help us plan for climate change. Nature 413:249–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pope VD, Gallani ML, Rowntree PR, Stratton RA (2000) The impact of new physical parameterizations in the Hadley Centre climate model: HadAM3. Clim Dynam 16:123–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recipes in Fortran 77: the art of scientific computing, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 402Google Scholar
  21. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Osborn TJ (2001) Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM results. Clim Dynam 17:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santer BD, Wigley TML, Schlesinger ME, Mitchell JFB (1990) Developing climate scenarios from equilibrium GCM results. Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology Report Number 47, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  23. Schlesinger ME, Andronova NG, Entwistle B, Ghanem A, Ramankutty N, Wang W, Yang F (1997) Modelling and simulation of climate and climate change. In: Catagnoli GC, Provenzale A (eds) Past and present variability of the solar-terrestrial system. International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, vol 133. IOS Press, Amsterdam pp 389–429Google Scholar
  24. Shine K, Derwent R, Wuebbles D, Morcette JJ (1990) Radiative forcing of climate. In: Houghton J, Jenkins G, Ephraums J (eds) Climate change. The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–68Google Scholar
  25. Stainforth DA, Aina T, Christensen C, Collins M, Faull N, Frame DJ, Kettleborough JA, Knight S, Martin A, Murphy JM, Piani C, Sexton DMH, Smith LA, Spicer RA, Thorpe AJ, Allen MR (2005) Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433:403–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tebaldi C, Smith RL, Nychka D, Mearns LO (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multi-model ensembles. J Climate 18:1524–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Webb MJ, Senior CA, Sexton DMH, Ingram WJ, Williams KD, Ringer MA, McAvaney BJ, Colman R, Soden BJ, Gudgel R, Knutson T, Emori S, Ogura T, Tsushima Y, Andronova N, Li B, Musat I, Bony S, TAylor KE (2006) On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim Dynam (in press). DOI 10.1007/s000382-006-0111-2Google Scholar
  28. Williams KD, Senior CA, Mitchell JFB (2001) Transient climate change in the Hadley Centre models: the role of physical processes. J Climate 14:2659–2674CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© British Crown Copyright 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. R. Harris
    • 1
  • D. M. H. Sexton
    • 1
  • B. B. B. Booth
    • 1
  • M. Collins
    • 1
  • J. M. Murphy
    • 1
  • M. J. Webb
    • 1
  1. 1.Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and ResearchMet OfficeExeterUK

Personalised recommendations