Climatic Change

, Volume 87, Supplement 1, pp 21–42 | Cite as

Climate change scenarios for the California region

  • Daniel R. CayanEmail author
  • Edwin P. Maurer
  • Michael D. Dettinger
  • Mary Tyree
  • Katharine Hayhoe


To investigate possible future climate changes in California, a set of climate change model simulations was selected and evaluated. From the IPCC Fourth Assessment, simulations of twenty-first century climates under a B1 (low emissions) and an A2 (a medium-high emissions) emissions scenarios were evaluated, along with occasional comparisons to the A1fi (high emissions) scenario. The climate models whose simulations were the focus of the present study were from the Parallel Climate Model (PCM1) from NCAR and DOE, and the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.1 model (GFDL). These emission scenarios and attendant climate simulations are not “predictions,” but rather are a purposely diverse set of examples from among the many plausible climate sequences that might affect California in the next century. Temperatures over California warm significantly during the twenty-first century in each simulation, with end-of-century temperature increases from approximately +1.5°C under the lower emissions B1 scenario in the less responsive PCM1 to +4.5°C in the higher emissions A2 scenario within the more responsive GFDL model. Three of the simulations (all except the B1 scenario in PCM1) exhibit more warming in summer than in winter. In all of the simulations, most precipitation continues to occur in winter. Relatively small (less than ~10%) changes in overall precipitation are projected. The California landscape is complex and requires that model information be parsed out onto finer scales than GCMs presently offer. When downscaled to its mountainous terrain, warming has a profound influence on California snow accumulations, with snow losses that increase with warming. Consequently, snow losses are most severe in projections by the more responsive model in response to the highest emissions.


Emission Scenario Snow Water Equivalent Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Variable Infiltration Capacity Parallel Climate Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulla FA, Lettenmaier DP, Wood EF, Smith JA (1996) Application of a macroscale hydrologic model to estimate the water balance of the Arkansas-Red River basin. J Geophys Res 101:7449–7459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett T, Malone R, Pennell W, Stammer D, Semtner A, Washington W (2004) The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: introduction and overview. Clim Change 62:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cayan DR, Kammerdiener S, Dettinger MD, Caprio JM, Peterson DH (2001) Changes in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(3):399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cayan DC, Maurer E, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K, Bonfils C, Duffy P, Santer B (2006) Climate scenarios for California. FINAL white paper from California Climate Change Center, publication # CEC-500-2005-203-SF, posted: March 15, 2006.
  5. Christensen NS, Wood AW, Voisin N, Lettenmaier DP, Palmer RN (2004) The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin. Clim Change 62:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, Yihui D, Noguer M (eds) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Delworth T et al (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models – Part 1: Formulation and simulation characteristics. J Climate 19(5):643–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dettinger MD (2005) From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change distributions for 21st Century California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 3(1):
  9. Dettinger MD (2006) A component-resampling approach for estimating probability distributions from small forecast ensembles. Clim Change 76:149–168 DOI  10.1007/s10584-005-9001-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dettinger MD, Battisti DS, Garreaud RD, McCabe GJ, Bitz CM (2001) Interhemispheric effects of interannual and decadal ENSO-like climate variations on the Americas. In: Markgraf V (ed) Interhemispheric climate linkages: present and past climates in the Americas and their societal effects. Academic, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  11. Field CB, Daily GC, Davis FW, Gaines S, Matson PA, Melack J, Miller NL (1999) Confronting climate change in California: ecological impacts on the golden state. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  12. Gershunov A, Douville H (2007) Extensive summer hot and cold extremes under current and possible future climatic conditions: Europe and North America. Assessing, modeling and monitoring the impacts of extreme climate events. Cambridge University Press (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Gordon C, Cooper C, 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 Dyn 16:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen J, Sato Mki, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Lo K, Schmidt GA, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, Baum E, Bell N, Cairns B, Canuto V, Chandler M, Cheng Y, Cohen A, Del Geno A, Faluvegi G, Fleming E, Friend A, Hall T, Jackman C, Jonas J, Kelley M, Kiang N, Koch D, Labow G, Lerner J, Menon S, Miller RL, Novakov T, Oinas V, Perlwitz Ja, Perlwitz Ju, Rind D, Romanou A, Shindell D, Stone P, Sun S, Streets D, Tausnev N, Thresher D, Yao M, Zhang S (2007) Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. Atmos Chem Phys 7:2287–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Lo K (2006) GISS surface temperature analysis: global temperature trends: 2005 Summation.
  16. Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field CB, Frumhoff PC, Maurer EP, Miller NL, Moser SC, Schneider SH, Cahill KN, Cleland EE, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanermann RM (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(34):12422–12427 24 August 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houghton JT et al (eds) (2001) The scientific basis: contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, pp 525–582Google Scholar
  18. Jones P, Palutikof P (2006) Global temperature record. Climate research unit, University of East Anglia.
  19. Knowles N, Cayan DR (2002) Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary. Geophys Res Lett 29(18):1891–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knowles N, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2007) Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the Western United States. J Climate (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Knutson TR, Delworth TL, Dixon KW, Held IM, Lu J, Ramaswamy V, Schwarzkopf MD, Stenchikov G, Stouffer RJ (2006) Assessment of twentieth century regional surface temperature trends using the GFDL CM2 Coupled Models. J Climate 10:1624–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lettenmaier DP, Gan TY (1990) Hydrologic Sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to Global Warming, edited. Water Resour Res 69–86Google Scholar
  23. Liang X, Lettenmaier DP, Wood E, Burges SJ (1994) A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys Res 99(D7):14, 415–414, 428Google Scholar
  24. Liang X, Lettenmaier DP, Wood EF (1996) One-dimensional statistical dynamic representation of subgrid spatial variability of precipitation in the two-layer variable infiltration capacity model. J Geophys Res 101(D16):21, 403–421, 422Google Scholar
  25. Lohmann D, Nolte-Holube R, Raschke E (1996) A large-scale horizontal routing model to be coupled to land surface parameterization schemes. Tellus 48A:708–721Google Scholar
  26. Maurer EP (2007) Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California under two emissions scenarios. Clim Change 82:309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maurer EP, Duffy PB (2005) Uncertainty in projections of streamflow changes due to climate change in California. Geophys Res Lett 32:L03704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maurer EP, O’Donnell GM, Lettenmaier DP, Roads JO (2001) Evaluation of the land surface water budget in NCEP/NCAR and NCEP/DOE reanalyses using an off-line hydrologic model. J Geophys Res 106(D16):17841–17862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maurer EP, Wood AW, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP, Nijssen B (2002) A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J Climate 15(22):3237–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehl GA, Washington WM, Wigley TML, Arblaster JM, Dai A (2003) Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the twentieth century. J Climate 16(3):426–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller NL, Bashford KE, Strem E (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39:771–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mote PW, Hamlet AF, Clark MP, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakic’enovic’ N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T et al (2000) Intergovernmental panel on climate change special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.KGoogle Scholar
  34. National Assessment Synthesis Team (2001) Climate change impacts on the United States. The potential consequences of climate variability and change, US Global Change Research ProgramGoogle Scholar
  35. Nijssen B, Lettenmaier DP, Liang X, Wetzel SW, Wood E (1997) Streamflow simulation for continental-scale basins. Water Resour Res 33:711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nijssen B, O’Donnell GM, Lettenmaier DP, Lohmann D, Wood EF (2001) Predicting the discharge of global rivers. J Climate 14(15):1790–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Payne JT, Wood AW, Hamlet AF, Palmer RN, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Mitigating the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Clim Change 62:233–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pope VD, Gallani ML, Rowntree PR, Stratton RA (2000) The impact of new physical parameterisations in the Hadley Centre climate model – HadAM3. Clim Dyn 16:123–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Santer BD, Wigley TML, Barnett TP, Anyamba E (1996) Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (USA)Google Scholar
  40. Stewart I, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2005) Changes towards earlier streamflow timing across western North America. J Climate 18:1136–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stouffer et al (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models – Part 4: Idealized climate response. J Climate 19:723–740Google Scholar
  42. Tett SFB, Stott PA, Allen MR, Ingram WJ, Mitchell JFB (1999) Causes of twentieth century temperature change. Nature 399:569–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. VanRheenen NT, Wood AW, Palmer RN, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Clim Change 62:257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Washington WM, Weatherly JW, Meehl GA, Semtner AJ, Bettge TW, Craig AP, Strand WG, Arblaster J, Wayland VB, James R, Zhang Y (2000) Clim Dyn 16(10/11):755–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson T et al (2003) Global climate change and California: potential implications for ecosystems, health, and the economy. California Energy Commission: Sacramento. 1*138. Available at
  46. Wood AW, Maurer EP, Kumar A, Lettenmaier DP (2002) Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J Geophys Res 107(D20):4429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Clim Change 62:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2005) Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2005: Geneva, 15 December, 2005.
  49. Zhao R-J, Fang L-R, Liu X-R, Zhang Q-S (1980) The Xinanjiang model, in Hydrological Forecasting, Proceedings, Oxford Symposium, edited, pp 351–356, IAHS Publ. 129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel R. Cayan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Edwin P. Maurer
    • 3
  • Michael D. Dettinger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mary Tyree
    • 1
  • Katharine Hayhoe
    • 4
  1. 1.Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Santa Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeosciencesTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations