Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Causes and uncertainty of future summer drying over Europe

  • Published:
Climate Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the continuing rise in anthropogenic emissions is likely to cause continental European summers to become substantially drier over the coming century. Since this predicted decline in rainfall and soil moisture (SM) would bring significant stress to society and ecosystems, it is essential that its reliability or otherwise is properly assessed. One approach is to gain a better understanding of the model’s mechanisms of regional climate change and integrate this with a knowledge of the model’s strengths and weaknesses. Here we propose a methodology that partitions some of the mechanisms of regional climate change, and apply it to the problem of summer drying over continental Europe. Earlier work suggests that a plausible partition of the mechanisms of future mid-latitude continental summer drying might be as follows: (a) an earlier and more rapid decline in SM during spring, leading to lower SM in summer, and hence less convective rainfall (‘Spring SM’); (b) a larger land–sea contrast in lower tropospheric summer warming, leading to reduced relative humidity in air advected onto the continent, and so reduced rainfall (‘Warming’); (c) other large-scale atmospheric changes, including remotely forced circulation changes (‘Large-Scale’); and (d) a positive feedback mechanism in summer, whereby the reduced rainfall dries the soil further, so reducing convective activity further (‘Summer SM Feedback’). We attempt to isolate these mechanisms by integrating a geographic subset of the high resolution global atmospheric model HadAM3P to assess their relative importance in generating the projected European summer drying. Each mechanism is approximately represented (and so isolated) using an appropriate mix of inputs to the model, with some matching a control integration and others matching a future scenario integration. These mixed inputs are: atmospheric composition (CO2, aerosol and ozone), surface boundary data (SM and SSTs), and lateral boundary data (temperature, moisture, winds, and surface pressure). We describe this methodology and the experimental suite in some detail, as well as the constraints on our ability to fully separate these mechanisms. It is also shown that the separation of mechanisms is not compromised by interactions between them. For continental and southeastern Europe, it is found that both the ‘Warming’ and ‘Spring SM’ mechanisms are the primary drivers of the projected summer drying. ‘Summer SM Feedback’ plays an important secondary role, and ‘Large-Scale’ mechanisms, as represented here, have least influence. Since the two dominant mechanisms depend on processes in which we have reasonable confidence, this gives us high confidence in the sign of the projected summer drying over continental and southeastern Europe. Nevertheless, uncertainties in model formulation and future anthropogenic emissions mean that the magnitude of this future rainfall anomaly remains unclear. Over Great Britain and southern Scandinavia, our experiments show that the rainfall anomaly is dominated by opposing effects from the ‘Warming’ and ‘Large-Scale’ mechanisms, which in this area dictate increased and decreased rainfall respectively. Given this rivalry, and also that we have low confidence in the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism, this suggests that even the sign of the projected drying here is uncertain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that where a negative value is plotted in Fig. 4 it means that the mechanism in isolation produces a rainfall anomaly of opposite sign to the total anomaly. In some regions this can cause the contribution of another mechanism to exceed 100%. For clarity, the majority of such areas were excluded by limiting the domain of the plot, since beyond this region the total anomaly reverses sign more often, leading to negative values (and other values greater than 100%) where the anomaly of an individual mechanism does not reverse sign.

  2. To avoid the pitfall of the spatial correlation calculations being dominated by extreme positive and negative values, grid-point percentages exceeding 110% were reset to 110%, and percentages below −10% were reset to −10%.

  3. Note that such mesoscale anomalies are probably sufficiently heterogeneous that they would have little systematic upscale influence on scales resolvable by the model. This is supported at slightly larger scales by Christensen and Christensen (submitted) who show that the 2071–2100 response pattern of European summer mean rainfall in a 25 km resolution regional climate model is much the same as that of the ∼135 km driving global model.

References

  • Allen MR, Ingram WJ (2002) Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle. Nature 419:224–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cess RD et al (1990) Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 95:16601–16615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bono A, Peduzzi P, Giuliani G, Kluser S (2004) Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe. UNEP early warning on emerging environmental threats report, available at http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/ publication/download/ew_heat_wave.en.pdf

  • Douville H, Chauvin F, Planton S, Royer J-F, Salas-Melia D, Tyteca S (2002) Sensitivity of the hydrological cycle to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Clim Dyn 20:45–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink AH, Brücher T, Krüger A, Leckebusch GC, Pinto JG, Ulbrich U (2004) The 2003 European summer heatwaves and drought—synoptic diagnosis and impacts. Weather 59:209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi F, Francisco R (2000) Evaluating uncertainties in the prediction of regional climate change. Geophys Res Lett 27:1295–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi F, Bates GT, Nieman SJ (1993) The multiyear surface climatology of a regional atmospheric model over the western United States. J Clim 6:75–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi F, Hewitson B, Christensen J, Fu C, Jones R, Hulme M, Mearns LV, Storch H, Whetton P (2001) Regional climate information—evaluation and projections. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden P, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CI (eds) 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, pp 583–638

  • Gregory JM, Mitchell JFB, Brady AJ (1997) Summer drought in northern midlatitudes in a time-dependent CO2 climate experiment. J Clim 10:662–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram WJ (2002) On the robustness of the water vapor feedback: GCM vertical resolution and formulation. J Clim 15:917–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RG, Murphy JM, Noguer M (1995) Simulation of climate change over Europe using a nested regional-climate model. I: Assessment of control climate, including sensitivity to location of lateral boundaries. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:1413–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RG, Murphy JM, Hassell DC, Woodage MJ (2006) A high resolution atmospheric GCM for the generation of regional climate scenarios. Hadley Centre Technical Note 63, Met Office, Exeter

  • Kanamitsu M, Mo KC (2003) Dynamical effect of land surface processes on summer precipitation over the southwestern United States. J Clim 16:496–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster RD, Suarez MJ, Higgins RW, and Van den Dool HM (2003) Observational evidence that soil moisture variations affect precipitation. Geophys Res Lett 30:1241. DOI 10.1029/2002GL016571

    Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Wetherald RT (1975) The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 32:3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Wetherald RT (1987) Large-scale changes of soil wetness induced by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Atmos Sci 44:1211–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Wetherald RT, Stouffer RJ (1981) Summer dryness due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Clim Change 3:347–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Spelman MJ, Stouffer RJ (1992) Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part II: Seasonal response. J Clim 5:105–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell JFB, Ingram WJ (1992) Carbon dioxide and climate: mechanisms of changes in cloud. J Clim 5:5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell JFB, Warrilow DA (1987) Summer dryness in northern mid-latitudes due to increased CO2. Nature 330:238–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rind D, Goldenberg R, Hansen J, Rosenzweig C, Ruedy R (1990) Potential evapotransiration and the likelihood of future drought. J Geophys Res 95:9983–10004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross RJ, Elliott WP (2001) Radiosonde-based Northern Hemisphere tropospheric water vapor trends. J Clim 14:1602–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell DP (2005) A scenario of European climate change for the late 21st century: seasonal means and interannual variability. Clim Dyn, 25:837–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schär C, Luthi D, Beyerle U (1999) The soil–precipitation feedback: A process study with a regional climate model. J Clim 12:722–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seneviratne SI, Pal JS, Eltahir EAB, Schär C (2002) Summer dryness in a warmer climate: a process study with a regional climate model. Clim Dyn 20:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng J, Zwiers F (1998) An improved scheme for time-dependent boundary conditions in atmospheric general circulation models. Clim Dyn 14:609–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soden BJ, Jackson DL, Ramaswamy V, Schwarzkopf MD, Huang X (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropspheric moistening. Science 310:841–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stainforth DA, Aina T, Christensen C, Collins M, Faull N, Frame DJ, Kettleborough JA, Knight S, Martin A, Murphy JM, Piani C, Sexton D, Smith LA, Spicer RA, Thorpe AJ, Allen MR (2005) Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433:403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Storch H, Zwiers FW (1999) Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 484pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tebaldi C, Smith R, Nychka D, Mearns LO (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multimodel ensembles. J Clim 18:1524–1540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherald RT, Manabe S (1995) The mechanisms of summer dryness induced by greenhouse warming. J Clim 8:3096–3108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherald RT, Manabe S (1999) Detectability of summer drying caused by greenhouse warming. Clim Change 43:495–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang F, Kumar A, Schlesinger ME, Wang W (2003) Intensity of hydrological cycles in warmer climates. J Clim 16:2419–2423

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The technical contribution of David Hein, David Hassell and Simon Wilson has been very much appreciated, and also discussions with John Mitchell in the early stages of this work. Financial support was provided by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under contract PECD 7/12/37, and by the European Union Programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development under contract EVK2-CT-2001–00132 (PRUDENCE)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David P. Rowell.

Appendix A: Experiment details

Appendix A: Experiment details

1.1 A.1 Model description

Two minor details are noted here:

  1. 1.

    The only difference in the formulation of HadAM3P-Eur compared to its global parent model (HadAM3P), is that Fourier filtering can no longer be used to maintain stability at high latitudes, due to the restricted longitudinal domain. Instead the timestep between dynamics calculations is halved (but the timestep between physics calculations remains unchanged).

  2. 2.

    The application of lateral boundary data in HadAM3P-Eur is identical to that of Jones et al. (1995), except that an ‘inflow-outflow’ condition is applied to moisture and temperature variables in a similar approach to that of Giorgi et al. (1993). This minimises noise generated by inconsistencies at the outflow boundaries, which is otherwise found in the ‘Cntl+W’ and ‘Cntl+WS’ experiments, primarily in winter.

1.2 A.2 Isolating the impact of warming anomalies

Here we list a number of points of detail in the design of experiments that include the ‘Warming’ mechanism.

  1. 1.

    As noted in Sect. 2.3, aerosol concentrations at the lateral boundaries are taken from the global A2 integration. This provides mean aerosol flux anomalies across the boundaries that are consistent with the altered emissions. However, a slight weakness in experiments without the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism is that daily synoptic variations in this aerosol flux are inconsistent with the daily circulation patterns, since the latter derive from the control integration. Nevertheless, further adjustment of the boundary aerosol data (to match their statistics with the A2 integration, and their daily anomaly patterns with the control integration) was judged to be unnecessary, given that the largest flow into the region is from the west where concentrations are low.

  2. 2.

    The annual cycle of 30-year mean temperature anomalies, used at the lateral boundaries, is computed at 6-hourly resolution for the 360 model days. This is then smoothed (over the 360 days) separately for each phase of the diurnal cycle with a low-pass Chebychev filter, with amplitude cutoff at 60 days, to remove most of the noise due to sampling errors.

  3. 3.

    Note that only the mean temperature anomaly is altered at the lateral boundaries. The more complex changes in the higher moment statistics (i.e. interannual and eddy components) are included in the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism. This allows the processes included in each mechanism to have broadly consistent levels of uncertainty (low uncertainty for ‘Warming’, high uncertainty for ‘Large-Scale’; Sect. 5.1), aiding our assessment of the overall uncertainty of predicted summer drying. Nevertheless, the change in temperature variability is likely to be small at the maritime inflow (western) boundary, since the variability of SSTs is unaltered in these experiments (Rowell 2005).

  4. 4.

    The SM data used to force the model is taken from HadAM3P-Eur ‘Cntl’, not the global HadAM3P control, to provide greater consistency when the ‘Cntl+W’ and ‘Cntl’ experiments are compared.

  5. 5.

    From a technical point of view, the model is most easily forced with ‘Cntl’ SM by linearly interpolating monthly mean ‘Cntl’ SM data to daily values as the model integration proceeds. However, this approach introduces three additional changes to the model’s inputs that then contribute to our measurement of the ‘Warming’ mechanism for technical rather than scientific reasons, when it is measured by the difference between ‘Cntl+W’ and ‘Cntl’. First, daily SM anomalies (about the linear fit between monthly means) are removed. Second, the process of linear interpolation to daily values does not perfectly preserve the monthly mean SM, introducing a slight negative bias in the amplitude of the mean annual cycle and interannual variance (c.f. Sheng and Zwiers 1998). The mean absolute error in the 30-year seasonal mean SM from this source is nevertheless less than 10% (and usually less than 5%) of the SM difference between ‘Full-A2’ and ‘Cntl’. Third, it is conceivable that the removal of two-way coupling between SM and the atmosphere could itself lead to systematic differences. However, other assessments of this possibility in the context of SST forcing have found it to be negligible (S.J. Brown and J.R. Knight, personal communication, 2001). Thus, these three additional changes are likely to have only a minor impact on our measurement of the impact of ‘Warming’. Note that they do not contribute at all when ‘Warming’ is measured from the difference between ‘Cntl+WLS’ and ‘Cntl+LS’, since in this case both experiments use specified SM.

1.3 A.3 Isolating the impact of large-scale anomalies

Here we list some fine details in our experimental representation of the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism, noting that their contribution to its role is likely to be rather small.

  1. 1.

    In the experiment ‘Cntl+LS’, synoptic variations of the aerosol flux across lateral boundaries are sourced from the global control integration, whereas the daily circulation patterns are sourced from the global A2 integration. A correction procedure for this low-impact inconsistency was however judged to be unnecessary, as discussed in 1st list entry in Appendix A.2.

  2. 2.

    We note that the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism also includes the impact of changes to cloud moisture generated by the global model at the boundaries of HadAM3P-Eur.

  3. 3.

    We note that interannual anomalies of the lateral boundary data in experiments that include ‘Large-Scale’ mimic those of the global A2 integration, whereas in other experiments they mimic those of the control integration.

  4. 4.

    Interannual anomalies of SM are manipulated such that their pattern at each soil level becomes the same as that of ‘Full-A2’ for consistency with the circulation anomalies. In experiments without ‘Spring SM’ their 30-year mean for each month remains identical to that of ‘Cntl’, and their distribution (rough shape and extremes at each location and month) also remains close to that of ‘Cntl’. Their treatment in experiments that include ‘Spring SM’ is described in 2nd list entry in Appendix A.4.

  5. 5.

    We note that the ‘Large-Scale’ mechanism includes the impact of ‘Warming’ and SM changes within Europe on the large-scale circulation beyond Europe.

1.4 A.4 Isolating the impact of spring soil moisture anomalies

Two points of detail in the representation of the ‘Spring SM’ mechanism are as follows:

  1. 1.

    If a monthly SM value during June to October exceeds the range spanned by all 12 monthly values from both ‘Cntl’ and ‘Full-A2’ for that geographic location and soil layer, then the SM is constrained within this range. This prevents unreasonable values being used to force the model. The reduced anomaly is then persisted for the remainder of the season, or further reduced if necessary. In effect this allows some summer drainage of the component of SM arising from the May anomaly (usually corresponding to a reduction in actual drainage, since these anomalies are usually negative).

  2. 2.

    Interannual anomalies of SM are adjusted as follows. In wintertime, this is only necessary if ‘Large-Scale’ is not included, since this implies the circulation anomalies derive from ‘Cntl’ (whereas the SM derives from ‘Full-A2’). In this case the pattern of interannual SM anomalies is altered to follow that of the ‘Cntl’ experiment, but their distribution (mean, rough shape and extremes at each geographic location) remains close to that of the ‘Full-A2’ experiment. In summertime, their distribution (shape and extremes) is scaled to lie between (or close to) that of ‘Cntl’ and ‘Full-A2’, dependent on where the new 30-year mean SM lies relative to the control and A2 means. Their pattern in summer must be consistent with the circulation anomalies, so whether it mimics that of the ‘Full-A2’ or ‘Cntl’ SM depends on whether or not ‘Large-Scale’ is included.

1.5 A.5 Isolating the impact of summertime soil moisture feedback

Two further issues concerning the ‘Summer SM Feedback’ mechanism are as follows:

  1. 1.

    The minor effects noted in 5th list entry in Appendix A.2 of decoupling the SM model are reversed. Thus, daily SM anomalies are re-introduced, the small bias in the annual cycle and interannual variance of monthly mean SM is removed, and any systematic bias due to the lack of two-way interactions is removed.

  2. 2.

    We emphasise that this mechanism (as its name suggests) estimates the role of SM feedbacks only in summer. The full amplitude of future SM for the remainder of the year is included in the ‘Spring SM’ mechanism.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowell, D.P., Jones, R.G. Causes and uncertainty of future summer drying over Europe. Clim Dyn 27, 281–299 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0125-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0125-9

Keywords

Navigation