Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 120, Issue 1–2, pp 197–210 | Cite as

A transition from CMIP3 to CMIP5 for climate information providers: the case of surface temperature over eastern North America

  • Marko Markovic
  • Ramón de Elía
  • Anne Frigon
  • H. Damon Matthews
Article

Abstract

The release of new data constituting the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project—Phase 5 (CMIP5) database is an important event in both climate science and climate services issues. Although users’ eagerness for a fast transition from CMIP3 to CMIP5 is expected, this change implies some challenges for climate information providers. The main reason is that the two sets of experiments were performed in different ways regarding radiative forcing and hence continuity between both datasets is partially lost. The objective of this research is to evaluate a metric that is independent of the amount and the evolution of radiative forcing, hence facilitating comparison between the two sets for surface temperature over eastern North America. The link between CMIP3 and CMIP5 data sets is explored spatially and locally (using the ratio of local to global temperatures) through the use of regional warming patterns, a relationship between the grid-box and the global mean temperature change for a certain time frame. Here, we show that local to global ratios are effective tools in making climate change information between the two sets comparable. As a response to the global mean temperature change, both CMIP experiments show very similar warming patterns, trends, and climate change uncertainty for both winter and summer. Sensitivity of the models to radiative forcing is not assessed. Real inter-model differences remain the largest source of uncertainty when calculating warming patterns as well as spatially-based patterns for the pattern scaling approach. This relationship between the datasets, which may escape users when they are provided with a single radiative forcing pathway, needs to be stressed by climate information providers.

Keywords

Warming Pattern SRES Scenario Global Ratio Climate Information Provider Pattern Scaling Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the FRSCO program at Ouranos for allowing the first author to participate in this project. We wish to thank Dr. Marco Braun of Consortium Ouranos on his help in data processing. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/citation.html) for producing and making available their model output. Also, we would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their very substantial contributions toward improving our manuscript.

References

  1. Bitz C, Ridley J, Holland M (2012) Global climate models and 20th and 21st century arctic climate change. In: Lemke P, Jacobi H-W (eds) Arctic climate change—the ACSYS decade and beyond, p 405–436. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2027-5_11
  2. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, 7 DC., USA, 154 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Fordham DA, Wigley TML, Brook BW (2011) Multi-model climate projections for biodiversity risk assessments. Ecol Appl 21(8):3317–3331. doi: 10.1890/11-0314.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haine T, Böning C, Brandt P (2008) North Atlantic deep water formation in the Labrador Sea, recirculation through the subpolar gyre, and discharge to the subtropics. In: Dickson RR, Meincke J, Rhines P (eds) Arctic–subarcticGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawkins E, Sutton RT (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90(8):1095–1107. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, ISSN 1520–0477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 365 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Hulme M, Wigley TML, Barrow EM, Raper SCB, Centella A, Smith SJ, Chipanshi AC (2000) Using a climate scenario generator for vulnerability and adaptation assessments: MAGICC and SCENGEN version 2.4 workbook. In: Lim B, Smith J (eds) Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, U.K., 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Mearns OL, Gutowski W, Jones R, Leung R, McGinnis S, Ana Nunes YQ (2009) A regional climate change assessment program for North America. Eos 90:2008–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao Z-C (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitchell JFB, Johns TC, Eagles M, Ingram WJ, Davis RA (1999) Towards the construction of climate change scenarios. Clim Chang 41:547–581. doi: 10.1023/A:1005466909820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moss R, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds J, Elgizouli I, Emori S, Erda L, Hibbard K, Jones R, Kainuma M, Kelleher J, Lamarque JF, Manning M, Matthews B, Meehl J, Meyer L, Mitchell J, Nakicenovic N, O’Neill B, Pichs R, Riahi K, Rose S, Runci P, Stouffer R, van Vuuren D, Weyant J, Wilbanks T, van Ypersele JP, Zurek M (2008) Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. Technical summary. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 25 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Pennell C, Reichler T (2011) On the effective number of climate models. J Clim 24:2358–2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruosteenoja K, Tuomenvirta H, Jylhä K (2007) GCM-based regional temperature and precipitation change estimates for Europe under four SRES scenarios applying a super-ensemble pattern-scaling method. Clim Chang 81:193–208. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9222-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Santer BD, Wigley TML, Schlesinger ME, Mitchell JFB (1990) Developing Climate Scenarios from Equilibrium GCM Results. Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie Report No. 47, Hamburg, Germany, 29 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Solomon S et al (2011) Climate stabilization targets: emissions, concentrations, and impacts over decades to millennia. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Markovic
    • 1
  • Ramón de Elía
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne Frigon
    • 1
  • H. Damon Matthews
    • 3
  1. 1.Consortium OuranosMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre pour l’Étude et la Simulation du Climat à l’Échelle Régionale (ESCER)Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Geography, Planning and EnvironmentConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations