The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change

Abstract

We separate and quantify the sources of uncertainty in projections of regional (∼2,500 km) precipitation changes for the twenty-first century using the CMIP3 multi-model ensemble, allowing a direct comparison with a similar analysis for regional temperature changes. For decadal means of seasonal mean precipitation, internal variability is the dominant uncertainty for predictions of the first decade everywhere, and for many regions until the third decade ahead. Model uncertainty is generally the dominant source of uncertainty for longer lead times. Scenario uncertainty is found to be small or negligible for all regions and lead times, apart from close to the poles at the end of the century. For the global mean, model uncertainty dominates at all lead times. The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the precipitation projections is highest at the poles but less than 1 almost everywhere else, and is far lower than for temperature projections. In particular, the tropics have the highest S/N for temperature, but the lowest for precipitation. We also estimate a ‘potential S/N’ by assuming that model uncertainty could be reduced to zero, and show that, for regional precipitation, the gains in S/N are fairly modest, especially for predictions of the next few decades. This finding suggests that adaptation decisions will need to be made in the context of high uncertainty concerning regional changes in precipitation. The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional temperature projections is far greater. These conclusions on S/N are for the current generation of models; the real signal may be larger or smaller than the CMIP3 multi-model mean. Also note that the S/N for extreme precipitation, which is more relevant for many climate impacts, may be larger than for the seasonal mean precipitation considered here.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the results are not significantly different if the absolute changes from the mean of 1971–2000 are considered, rather than the percentage changes.

  2. 2.

    Boer (2009) noted a small increase in decadal variability of precipitation in the tropics for stabilised B1 and A1B scenarios in the CMIP3 ensemble. If we allow the variability to change with time in our analysis, the results are virtually indistinguishable, but for simplicity we assume a constant decadal variability.

  3. 3.

    Giorgi and Bi (2009) used 20 year means of precipitation changes for 6-month periods, and estimated the S/N for each scenario independently. We consider 10 year means for 3-month seasons and include the additional scenario uncertainty. It would therefore be expected that our methodology would produce lower S/N values, and this is indeed the case.

  4. 4.

    Note however that some GCMs show a drift in precipitation related to the spin-up of the model. This drift is removed using a second order polynomial.

References

  1. Adler RF, Huffman GJ, Chang A, Ferraro R, Xie P, Janowiak J, Rudolf B, Schneider U, Curtis S, Bolvin D, Gruber A, Susskind J, Arkin P (2003) The version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present). J Hydrometeorol 4:1147–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boer GJ (2009) Changes in interannual variability and decadal potential predictability under global warming. J Clim 22:3098–3109. doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2835.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brohan P, Kennedy JJ, Harris I, Tett SFB, Jones P (2006) Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J Geophys Res 111:D12106. doi:10.1029/2005JD006548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dessai S, Hulme M (2007) Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to climate change uncertainties: a case study on water resources management in the East of England. Glob Environ Change 17:59–72. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feddema JJ, Oleson KW, Bonan GB, Mearns LO, Buja LE, Meehl GA, Washington WM (2005) The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science 310:1674–1678. doi:10.1126/science.1118160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Folland CK, Palmer TN, Parker DE (1986) Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures, 1901–85. Nature 320:602–607. doi:10.1038/320602a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Giorgi F, Bi X (2009) Time of emergence (TOE) of GHG-forced precipitation change hot-spots. Geophys Res Lett 36:L06709. doi:10.1029/2009GL037593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Giorgi F, Mearns LO (2002) Calculation of average, uncertainty range, and reliability of regional climate changes from AOGCM simulations via the reliability ensemble averaging (REA) method. J Clim 15:1141–1158

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harris G, Sexton D, Booth B, Collins M, Murphy J, Webb M (2006) Frequency distributions of transient regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles of general circulation model simulations. Clim Dyn 27:357–375. doi:10.1007/s00382-006-0142-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095–1107. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jewson S, Hawkins E (2009) CMIP3 ensemble spread, model similarity, and climate prediction uncertainty. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1890

  12. Keenlyside NS, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E (2008) Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453:84–88. doi:10.1038/nature06921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Knutti R, Allen MR, Friedlingstein P, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Meehl GA, Meinshausen M, Murphy JM, Plattner GK, Raper SCB, Stocker TF, Stott PA, Teng H, Wigley TML (2008) A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century. J Clim 21:2651–2663. doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2119.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lobell DB, Burke MB (2008) Why are agricultural impacts of climate change so uncertain? The importance of temperature relative to precipitation. Environ Res Lett 3:034007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins W, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao ZC (2007) Global climate projections. In: 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, Cambridge

  16. Meehl GA, Goddard L, Murphy J, Stouffer RJ, Boer G, Danabasoglu G, Dixon K, Giorgetta MA, Greene AM, Hawkins E, Hegerl G, Karoly D, Keenlyside N, Kimoto M, Kirtman B, Navarra A, Pulwarty R, Smith D, Stammer D, Stockdale T (2009) Decadal prediction: can it be skillful? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1467–1485. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell TD, Jones PD (2005) An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int J Climatol 25:693–712. doi:10.1002/joc.1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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. doi:10.1038/nature02771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Palmer TN, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Weisheimer A, Rodwell MJ (2008) Towards seamless prediction: calibration of climate change projections using seasonal forecasts. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89:459–470. doi:10.1175/BAMS-89-4-459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pohlmann H, Jungclaus J, Kohl A, Stammer D, Marotzke J (2009) Initializing decadal climate predictions with the GECCO oceanic synthesis: effects on the North Atlantic. J Clim 22:3926–3938. doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2535.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Poulter B, Hattermann F, Hawkins E, Zaehle S, Sitch S, Restrepo-Coupe N, Heyder U, Cramer W (2009) Robust dynamics of Amazon dieback to climate change with perturbed ecosystem model parameters. Glob Change Biol (in press). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02157.x

  22. Räisänen J (2001) CO2-induced climate change in CMIP2 experiments: quantification of agreement and role of internal variability. J Clim 14:2088–2104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rowell DP, Folland CK, Maskell K, Ward MN (1995) Variability of summer rainfall over tropical north Africa (1906–92): observations and modelling. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:669–704

    Google Scholar 

  24. Smith DM, Cusack S, Colman AW, Folland CK, Harris GR, Murphy JM (2007) Improved surface temperature prediction for the coming decade from a global climate model. Science 317:796–799. doi:10.1126/science.1139540

    Article  Google 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 D, Smith LA, Spicer RA, Thorpe AJ, Allen MR (2005) Uncertainty in the predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433:403–406. doi:10.1038/nature03301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutton RT, Hodson DLR (2005) Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American and European summer climate. Science 309:115–118. doi:10.1126/science.1109496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tebaldi C, Mearns LO, Nychka D, Smith RL (2004) Regional probabilities of precipitation change: a Bayesian analysis of multimodel simulations. Geophys Res Lett 31:L24213. doi:10.1029/2004GL021276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tebaldi C, Hayhoe K, Arblaster JM, Meehl GA (2006) Going to the extremes: an intercomparison of model-simulated historical and future changes in extreme events. Clim Change 79:185–211. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9051-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilby RL, Harris I (2006) A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resour Res 42:W02419. doi:10.1029/2005WR004065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang X, Zwiers FW, Hegerl GC, Lambert FH, Gillett NP, Solomon S, Stott PA, Nozawa T (2007) Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends. Nature 448:461–465. doi:10.1038/nature06025

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and Keith Dixon for useful suggestions. E. Hawkins is funded by the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS-Climate) and the European Union THOR programme. R. Sutton is supported by NCAS-Climate. We acknowledge the modelling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset. Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ed Hawkins.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Testing the internal variability estimates

We test our estimates of the internal variability component of regional precipitation using the constant forcing pre-industrial control integrations of the same GCMs, in which there are no complicating transient forcing effects to consider.Footnote 4 This estimate can then be compared to the estimate derived from the transient integrations.

Figure 8 shows the standard deviation of running decadal means of regional precipitation, expressed as a percentage of the mean precipitation, for both the pre-industrial control integrations (panel a) and the twenty-first century transient integrations (panel b). The patterns are very similar, giving us confidence in our estimates of the decadal variability component of the uncertainty.

Fig. 8
figure8

Estimates of the decadal internal variability of regional precipitation. a Mean standard deviation from the pre-industrial control integrations of the GCMs used. b Mean standard deviation for the twenty-first century integrations of the GCMs used. c From the CRU TS3.0 land observations for 1901–2006 (Mitchell and Jones 2005), averaged into 10° boxes, using a 1971–2000 climatology. Grey denotes no data. Note the different colour scale for the observations. Units are % of the mean precipitation

Boer (2009) also analysed the CMIP3 pre-industrial control integrations and found that the magnitude of the zonal mean decadal variability, relative to the mean precipitation, peaks in the tropics, and increases slightly with increased radiative forcings. The maps in Fig. 8 suggest that it is Africa which dominates the estimates of zonal mean decadal variability in the tropics, and the Sahel region is well known to have large decadal variability in precipitation (e.g., Rowell et al. 1995), possibly caused by changes in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g., Folland et al. 1986).

Comparison with observational estimates

Figure 8c shows an estimate of the decadal variability from the CRU TS3.0 observational dataset (Mitchell and Jones 2005) for 1901–2006, calculated in a similar way to the GCM estimates above. The observations consist of land-only annual mean data, have been regridded onto a 10° × 10° grid, and detrended with a fourth order polynomial. Note that the scale on Fig. 8c is twice that of Fig. 8a,b. The regions identified as having relatively large decadal variability are similar to the GCMs, but this analysis suggests that the observed decadal variability in precipitation is larger than the GCM estimates, although it must be noted that the observational estimate will have considerable uncertainties. Zhang et al. (2007) also found that for land-only zonal means, the variability in precipitation was significantly underestimated in GCMs when compared to observations, but Boer (2009) found that the internal variability of the GCMs agreed well with an observational estimate of zonal mean precipitation. There is therefore a suggestion, but certainly no consensus, that GCMs may underestimate the magnitude of decadal variability in precipitation.

Appendix 2

In Figure 2 we show the proportion of the total standard deviation due to each type of uncertainty. This has been estimated by considering that the total variance in the projections (T 2) is the sum of the variance due to internal variability (I 2), model uncertainty (M 2) and scenario uncertainty (S 2),

$$ T^2 = I^2 + M^2 + S^2. $$
(2)

When considering the total standard deviation, T, we would like,

$$ T = I'+M'+S' = {\frac{I} {F}} +{\frac{M} {F}} + {\frac{S} {F}}, $$
(3)

where the primes denote scaled versions of I, M and S. The common scaling factor, F, is then,

$$ F = {\frac{I+M+S} {T}} $$
(4)

and the boundaries between the different coloured sections in Fig. 2 are at \({\frac{\pm I} {F}}, {\frac{\pm(I+M)} {F}}\) and \({\frac{\pm(I+M+S)} {F}}\) .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hawkins, E., Sutton, R. The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Clim Dyn 37, 407–418 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Precipitation
  • Uncertainty