Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 51–63 | Cite as

Shifts of means are not a proxy for changes in extreme winter temperatures in climate projections

Article

Abstract

Changes in the severity of extreme weather events under the influence of the enhanced greenhouse effect could have disproportionally large effects compared to changes in the mean climate. Here, we explored the meteorological circumstances of extremes and changes therein using two 49-member climate model ensembles for reference (1961–1990) and scenario (2051–2080) greenhouse-gas concentrations. We have focused on daily-mean surface-air temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere in January. Over large parts of the continents, changes in the one-in-10-year temperature events are influenced at least as much by changes in the shape of the probability distribution functions (PDFs) as by shifts in the mean. In coastal areas, this is largely attributable to changes in the large-scale circulation, for those types of extremes linked to infrequent wind directions. In other areas, the inhomogeneous mean warming, increasing inland and polewards, affects the tails of the local temperature PDFs. Temperature extremes in widely different regions were found to be linked by a large-scale circulation anomaly pattern, which resembles the Arctic Oscillation. In the scenario ensemble, this anomaly pattern favors its positive phase, leading to enhanced probabilities of westerly winds in a belt around the Northern Hemisphere.

Keywords

Return Period Probability Distribution Function Generalize Extreme Value Cold Extreme Warm Extreme 
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.

References

  1. Alcamo J, Kreileman E, Krol M, Leemans R, Bollen J, van Minnen JG, Schaeffer M, Toet S, de Vries B (1998) An instrument for building global change scenarios. In: Alcamo J, Leemans R, Kreileman E (eds) Global change scenarios of the 21st century: results from the IMAGE 2.1 model. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 296Google Scholar
  2. van den Brink HW, Können GP, Opsteegh JD (2003) The reliability of extreme surge levels, estimated from observational records of order hundred years. J Coastal Res 19(2):376–388Google Scholar
  3. Deser C (2000) On the teleconnectivity of the “Arctic Oscillation”. Geophys Res Lett 27:779–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goosse H, Selten FM, Haarsma RJ, Opsteegh JD (2001) Decadal variability in high Northern latitudes as simulated by an intermediate-complexity climate model. Ann Glaciol 33:525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goosse H, Selten FM, Haarsma RJ, Opsteegh JD (2002) A mechanism of decadal variability of the sea-ice volume in the Northern Hemisphere. Climate Dyn 19:61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goosse H, Fichefet T (1999) Importance of ice-ocean interactions for the global ocean circulation: a model study. J Geophys Res 104:23337–23355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory JM, Mitchell JFB (1995) Simulation of daily variability of surface temperature and precipitation over Europe in the current and 2xCO2 climates using the UKMO climate model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:474–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gregory JM, Stouffer RJ, Raper SCB, Stott PA, Rayner NA (2002) An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J Climate 15:3117–3121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hosking JRM (1990) L-moments: analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. J Royal Statist Soc B 52:105–124Google Scholar
  10. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, Linden PJvd, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 881 pp.Google Scholar
  11. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Kattenberg A, Giorgi F, Grassl H, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Tokioka T, Weaver AJ, Wigley TML (1996) Climate models—projections of future climate. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K (eds) Climate change 1995: the science of Climate change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 572Google Scholar
  13. Katz RW, Brown BG (1992) Extreme events in a changing climate: variability is more important than averages. Climatic Change 21:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kharin VV, Zwiers FW (2000) Changes in the extremes in an ensemble of transient climate simulation with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM. J Climate 13:3760–3788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knapp AK, Fay PA, Blair JM, Collins SL, Smith MD, Carlisle JD, Harper CW, Danner BT, Lett MS, McCarron JK (2002) Rainfall variability, carbon cycling, and plant species diversity in a Mesic Grassland. Science 298:2202–2205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mearns LO, Rosenzweig C, Goldberg R (1996) The effect of changes in daily and interannual climatic variability on ceres-wheat: a sensitivity study. Climatic Change 32:257–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mearns LO, Rosenzweig C, Goldberg R (1997) Mean and variance change in climate scenarios: methods, agricultural applications, and measures of uncertainty. Climatic Change 35:367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oldenborgh GJ, van Ulden A (2003) On the relationship between global warming, local warming in the Netherlands and changes in circulation in the 20th century. Int J Climatol 23:1711–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Opsteegh JD, Haarsma RJ, Selten FM, Kattenberg A (1998) ECBILT: a dynamic alternative to mixed boundary conditions in ocean models. Tellus 50A:348–367Google Scholar
  20. Osborn TJ (2002) The winter North Atlantic Oscillation: roles of internal variability and greenhouse gas forcing. CLIVAR Exchanges 25:54–58Google Scholar
  21. Renssen H, Goosse H, Fichefet T, Campin J-M (2001) The 8.2 kyr BP event simulated by a global atmosphere-sea-ice-ocean model. Geophys Res Lett 28:1567–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schaeffer M, Selten FM, Opsteegh JD, Goosse H (2002) Intrinsic limits to predictability of abrupt regional climate change in IPCC-SRES scenarios. Geophys Res Lett 29:14.1–14.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schaeffer M, Selten FM, Opsteegh JD, Goosse H (2004) The influence of ocean convection patterns on high-latitude climate projections. J Climate 17:4316–4329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shindell DT, Miller RL, Schmidt GA, Pandolfo L (1999) Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing. Nature 399:452–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulbrich U, Christoph M (1999) A shift of the NAO and increasing storm track activity over Europe due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Climate Dyn 15:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wallace JM, Gutzler DS (1981) Teleconnections in the Geopotential Height Field during the Northern Hemisphere Winter Season. Monthly Weather Rev 109:784–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zorita E, Gonzáles-Rouco F (2000) Disagreement between predications of the future behavior of the Arctic Oscillation as simulated in two different climate models: implications for global warming. Geophys Res Lett 27:1755–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zwiers FW, Kharin VV (1998) Changes in the extremes of the climate simulated by the CCCGCM2 under CO2 doubling. J Climate 11:2200–2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)De BiltThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations