Evaluating IPCC AR4 cool-season precipitation simulations and projections for impacts assessment over North America

Stephanie A. McAfee, Joellen Russell, Paul J. Goodman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

General circulation models (GCMs) have demonstrated success in simulating global climate, and they are critical tools for producing regional climate projections consistent with global changes in radiative forcing. GCM output is currently being used in a variety of ways for regional impacts projection. However, more work is required to assess model bias and evaluate whether assumptions about the independence of model projections and error are valid. This is particularly important where models do not display offsetting errors. Comparing simulated 300-hPa zonal winds and precipitation for the late 20th century with reanalysis and gridded precipitation data shows statistically significant and physically plausible associations between positive precipitation biases across all models and a marked increase in zonal wind speed around 30°N, as well as distortions in rain shadow patterns. Over the western United States, GCMs project drier conditions to the south and increasing precipitation to the north. There is a high degree of agreement between models, and many studies have made strong statements about implications for water resources and about ecosystem change on that basis. However, since one of the mechanisms driving changes in winter precipitation patterns appears to be associated with a source of error in simulating mean precipitation in the present, it suggests that greater caution should be used in interpreting impacts related to precipitation projections in this region and that standard assumptions underlying bias correction methods should be scrutinized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2271-2287
Number of pages17
JournalClimate Dynamics
Volume37
Issue number11-12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint

general circulation model
simulation
zonal wind
radiative forcing
regional climate
global change
global climate
wind velocity
water resource
North America
impact assessment
ecosystem
winter
project
method
rain

Keywords

  • Bias
  • General circulation model (GCM)
  • Precipitation
  • Storm track

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atmospheric Science

Cite this

Evaluating IPCC AR4 cool-season precipitation simulations and projections for impacts assessment over North America. / McAfee, Stephanie A.; Russell, Joellen; Goodman, Paul J.

In: Climate Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 11-12, 12.2011, p. 2271-2287.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5b45bc85aa45446f833ec6de573a02f0,
title = "Evaluating IPCC AR4 cool-season precipitation simulations and projections for impacts assessment over North America",
abstract = "General circulation models (GCMs) have demonstrated success in simulating global climate, and they are critical tools for producing regional climate projections consistent with global changes in radiative forcing. GCM output is currently being used in a variety of ways for regional impacts projection. However, more work is required to assess model bias and evaluate whether assumptions about the independence of model projections and error are valid. This is particularly important where models do not display offsetting errors. Comparing simulated 300-hPa zonal winds and precipitation for the late 20th century with reanalysis and gridded precipitation data shows statistically significant and physically plausible associations between positive precipitation biases across all models and a marked increase in zonal wind speed around 30°N, as well as distortions in rain shadow patterns. Over the western United States, GCMs project drier conditions to the south and increasing precipitation to the north. There is a high degree of agreement between models, and many studies have made strong statements about implications for water resources and about ecosystem change on that basis. However, since one of the mechanisms driving changes in winter precipitation patterns appears to be associated with a source of error in simulating mean precipitation in the present, it suggests that greater caution should be used in interpreting impacts related to precipitation projections in this region and that standard assumptions underlying bias correction methods should be scrutinized.",
keywords = "Bias, General circulation model (GCM), Precipitation, Storm track",
author = "McAfee, {Stephanie A.} and Joellen Russell and Goodman, {Paul J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s00382-011-1136-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "2271--2287",
journal = "Climate Dynamics",
issn = "0930-7575",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "11-12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating IPCC AR4 cool-season precipitation simulations and projections for impacts assessment over North America

AU - McAfee, Stephanie A.

AU - Russell, Joellen

AU - Goodman, Paul J.

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - General circulation models (GCMs) have demonstrated success in simulating global climate, and they are critical tools for producing regional climate projections consistent with global changes in radiative forcing. GCM output is currently being used in a variety of ways for regional impacts projection. However, more work is required to assess model bias and evaluate whether assumptions about the independence of model projections and error are valid. This is particularly important where models do not display offsetting errors. Comparing simulated 300-hPa zonal winds and precipitation for the late 20th century with reanalysis and gridded precipitation data shows statistically significant and physically plausible associations between positive precipitation biases across all models and a marked increase in zonal wind speed around 30°N, as well as distortions in rain shadow patterns. Over the western United States, GCMs project drier conditions to the south and increasing precipitation to the north. There is a high degree of agreement between models, and many studies have made strong statements about implications for water resources and about ecosystem change on that basis. However, since one of the mechanisms driving changes in winter precipitation patterns appears to be associated with a source of error in simulating mean precipitation in the present, it suggests that greater caution should be used in interpreting impacts related to precipitation projections in this region and that standard assumptions underlying bias correction methods should be scrutinized.

AB - General circulation models (GCMs) have demonstrated success in simulating global climate, and they are critical tools for producing regional climate projections consistent with global changes in radiative forcing. GCM output is currently being used in a variety of ways for regional impacts projection. However, more work is required to assess model bias and evaluate whether assumptions about the independence of model projections and error are valid. This is particularly important where models do not display offsetting errors. Comparing simulated 300-hPa zonal winds and precipitation for the late 20th century with reanalysis and gridded precipitation data shows statistically significant and physically plausible associations between positive precipitation biases across all models and a marked increase in zonal wind speed around 30°N, as well as distortions in rain shadow patterns. Over the western United States, GCMs project drier conditions to the south and increasing precipitation to the north. There is a high degree of agreement between models, and many studies have made strong statements about implications for water resources and about ecosystem change on that basis. However, since one of the mechanisms driving changes in winter precipitation patterns appears to be associated with a source of error in simulating mean precipitation in the present, it suggests that greater caution should be used in interpreting impacts related to precipitation projections in this region and that standard assumptions underlying bias correction methods should be scrutinized.

KW - Bias

KW - General circulation model (GCM)

KW - Precipitation

KW - Storm track

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81455141453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81455141453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00382-011-1136-8

DO - 10.1007/s00382-011-1136-8

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:81455141453

VL - 37

SP - 2271

EP - 2287

JO - Climate Dynamics

JF - Climate Dynamics

SN - 0930-7575

IS - 11-12

ER -