Climatic Change

, Volume 62, Issue 1–3, pp 115–154

U.S. Climate Sensitivity Simulated with the NCEP Regional Spectral Model



10-year continuous U.S. climate simulations were conducted with the Regional Spectral Model (RSM) using boundary conditions from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/Dept. of Energy reanalyses and the global PCM (Parallel Climate Model) simulations for present day (1986–1996) andfuture (2040–2050) CO2 concentrations (about a 36% increasedCO2). In order to examine the influence of physical parameterization differences as well as grid-resolution, fine resolution RSM simulations (50 km) were compared to coarse resolution (180 and 250 km) RSM simulations, which had resolutions comparable to the T62 reanalysis and PCM simulations. During the winter, the fine resolution RSM simulations provided more realistic detail over the western mountains. During the summer, large differences between the RSM and driving PCM simulations were found. Our results with presentCO2 suggest that most of the differences between the regionalclimate model simulations and the climate simulations driven by the global model used to drive the regional climate model were not due to the finer resolution of the regional climate model but to the different treatment of the physical processes in the two models, especially when the subgrid scale physics was important, like during summer. Compared to the coarse resolution RSM simulation results, on the other hand, the fine resolution RSM simulations did show improved simulation skills especially when a good boundary condition such as the reanalysis was used to drive the RSM. Under increased CO2, the driving PCM and downscaled RSM simulations exhibitedwarming over all vertical layers and all regions. Both the RSM and PCM had increased precipitation during the winter, but during the summer, the PCM simulation had an overall precipitation increase mainly due to increased subgrid scale convective activity, whereas the RSM simulations exhibited precipitation decreases and the resulting RSM soil moisture became dryer, especially in the U.S. Southwest. Most of differences in the simulated climate change signals were produced by the distinct model physics rather than by differences in grid resolution.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, B. T. and Roads, J. O.: 2002, ‘Regional Simulation of Summertime Precipitation over the Southwestern United States’, J. Climate, 39 pp., in press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. T., Roads, J. O., Chen, S.-C., and Juang, H.-M. H.: 2000a, ‘Regional Simulation of the Low-Level Monsoon Winds over the Gulf of California and Southwest United States’, JGR Atmospheres 105(D14), 17955–17969.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. T., Roads, J. O., and Chen, S.-C.: 2000b, ‘Large-Scale Forcing of Summertime Monsoon Surges over the Gulf of California and Southwest United States’, JGR-Atmospheres 105(D19), 24, 455–467.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, B. T., Roads, J. O., Chen, S.-C., and Juang H.-M. H.: 2001, ‘Model Dynamics of Summertime Low-Level Jets over Northwest Mexico’, JGR-Atmospheres 106(D4), 3401–3413.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, S.-C.: 2001, ‘Model Mismatch between Global and Regional Simulations’, Geophys. Res. Lett., in press.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, S.-C., Roads, J. O., Juang, H.-M. H., and Kanamitsu, M.: 1999, ‘Global to Regional Modeling: California Wintertime Precipitation’, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 31517–31532.Google Scholar
  7. Dickinson, R. E., Errico, R. M., Giorgi, F., and Bates, G. T.: 1989, ‘A Regional Climate Model for the Western United States’, Clim. Change 15, 383–422.Google Scholar
  8. Giorgi, F.: 1995, ‘Perspectives for Regional Earth System Modeling’, Global Plan. Change 10, 23–42.Google Scholar
  9. Giorgi, F., Brodeur, C. S., and Bates, G. T.: 1994, ‘Regional Climate Change Scenarios over the United States Produced with a Nested Regional Climate Model’, J. Climate 7, 375–399.Google Scholar
  10. Giorgi, F., Hurrel, J. W., Marinucci, M. R., and Beniston, M.: 1997, ‘Elevation Dependency of the Surface Climate Signal: A Model Study’, J. Climate 10, 288–296.Google Scholar
  11. Han, J., Juang, H.-M. H., Hong, S.-Y., Kanamitsu, M., and Roads, J. O.: 2000, ‘Experimental Simulations with a New NCEP RSM’, The 2nd International RSM Workshop, Maui, Hawaii, July 17-21, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Higgins, R. W., Shi, W., Yarosh E., and Joyce, R.: 2000, ‘Improved United States Precipitation Quality Control System and Analysis’, NCEP/Climate Prediction Center ATLAS No. 7.Google Scholar
  13. Hirakuchi, H. and Giorgi, F.: 1995, ‘Multi-yr Present Day and 2 xCO2 Simulations of Monsoon Climate over Eastern Asia and Japan with a Regional Climate Model Nested in a General Circulation Model’, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 21105–21126.Google Scholar
  14. Hong, S.-Y. and Leetmaa, A.: 1999, ‘An Evaluation of the NCEP RSM for Regional Climate Modeling’, J. Climate 12, 592–609.Google Scholar
  15. IPCC: 1996, in Houghton J. T. et al. (eds.), The Science of Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, Cambridge University Press, 572 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Ji, Y. and Vernekar, A. D.: 1997, ‘Simulation of the Asian Summer Monsoons of 1987 and 1988 with a Regional Spectral Model Nested in a Global GCM’, J. Climate 10, 1965–1979.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, R. G., Murphy, M. J., Noguer, M., and Keen, A. B.: 1997, ‘Simulation of Climate Change over Europe Using a Nested Regional-Climate Model. II: Comparison of Driving and Regional Model Responses to a Doubling of Carbon Dioxide’, Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 123, 265–292.Google Scholar
  18. Juang, H.-M. H., Hong, S.-Y., and Kanamitsu, M.: 1997, ‘The NCEP Regional Spectral Model: An Update’, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 2125–2143.Google Scholar
  19. Juang, H.-M. H. and Kanamitsu, M.: 1994, ‘The NMC Nested Regional Spectral Model’, Mon. Wea. Rev. 122, 3–26.Google Scholar
  20. Kalnay, E. and Co-authors: 1996, ‘The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project’, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437–471.Google Scholar
  21. Kanamitsu, M.: 2000, ‘Latest GSM/RSMSystem. Short Course Lecture’, The 2nd International RSM Workshop, Maui, Hawaii, July 17-21, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. Kanamitsu, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Woollen, J., Yang, S.-K., Hnilo, J., Fiorino, M., and Potter, J.: 2001, ‘NCEP/DOE AMIP-II REANALYSIS (R-2)’, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., in press.Google Scholar
  23. Leung, L. R. and Ghan, S. J.: 1999a, ‘Pacific Northwest Climate Sensitivity Simulated by a Regional Climate Model Driven by a GCM. Part I: Control Simulations’, J. Climate 12, 2010–2030.Google Scholar
  24. Leung, L. R. and Ghan, S. J.: 1999b, ‘Pacific Northwest Climate Sensitivity Simulated by a Regional Climate Model Driven by a GCM. Part II: 2 xCO2 Simulations’, J. Climate 12, 2031–2053.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, S., Roads, J. O., and Oglesby, R. J.: 1997, ‘Effects of Resolution and Physics on Precipitation in the NCAR Community Climate Model’, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 19529–19541.Google Scholar
  26. McGregor, J. L. and Walsh, K. J.: 1994, ‘Climate Change Simulations of Tasmanian Precipitation Using Multiple Nestings’, J. Geophys. Res. 99(D10), 20889–20905.Google Scholar
  27. Roads, J. and Chen, S.: 2000, ‘Surface Water and Energy Budgets in the NCEP Regional Spectral Model’, J. Geophys. Res. 104(D24), 29539–29550.Google Scholar
  28. Roads, J., Chen, S.-C., and Kanamitsu, M.: 2002, ‘U.S. Regional Climate Simulations and Seasonal Forecasts’, JGR-Atmospheres, in press.Google Scholar
  29. Roads, J. O., Chen, S.-C., Kanamitsu, M., and Juang, H.: 1999, ‘Surface Water Characteristics in the NCEP Global Spectral Model and Reanalysis’, J. Geophys. Res. 104 (D16), 19307–19327.Google Scholar
  30. Takle, W. J. and Co-authors: 1999, ‘Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations (PIRCS): Description and Initial Results’, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 19443–19461.Google Scholar
  31. Washington, W. M., Weatherly, J. W., Meehl, G. A., Semtner, A. J. Jr., Bettge, T. W., Craig, A. P., Strand, W. G. Jr., Arblaster, J. M., Wayland, V. B., James, R., and Zhang, Y.: 2000, ‘Parallel Climate Model (PCM) Control and Transient Simulations’, Clim. Dyn. 16 (10/11), 755–774.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimental Climate Prediction Center, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaU.S.A
  2. 2.Experimental Climate Prediction Center, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations