Interpreting climate model projections of extreme weather events

AbstractThe availability of output from climate model ensembles, such as phases 3 and 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5), has greatly expanded information about future projections, but there is no accepted blueprint for how this data should be utilized. The multi-model average is the most commonly cited single estimate of future conditions, but higher-order moments representing the variance and skewness of the distribution of projections provide important information about uncertainty. We have analyzed a set of statistically downscaled climate model projections from the CMIP3 archive to assess extreme weather events at a level aimed to be appropriate for decision makers. Our analysis uses the distribution of 13 global climate model projections to derive the inter-model standard deviation, skewness, and percentile ranges for simulated changes in extreme heat, cold, and precipitation by the mid-21st century, based on the A1B emissions scenario. These metrics provide information on overall confidence across the entire range of projections (via the inter-model standard deviation), relative confidence in upper-end versus lower-end changes (via skewness), and quantitative uncertainty bounds (derived from bootstrapping).Over our analysis domain, which covers the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada, some primary findings include: (1) greater confidence in projections of less extreme cold than more extreme heat and intense precipitation, (2) greater confidence in relatively conservative projections of extreme heat, and (3) higher spatial variability in the confidence of projected increases in heavy precipitation. In addition, we describe how a simplified bootstrapping approach can assist decision makers by estimating the probability of changes in extreme weather events based on user-defined percentile thresholds

Final Technical Report for Project "Improving the Simulation of Arctic Clouds in CCSM3"

This project has focused on the simulation of Arctic clouds in CCSM3 and how the modeled cloud amount (and climate) can be improved substantially by altering the parameterized low cloud fraction. The new formula, dubbed 'freeezedry', alleviates the bias of excessive low clouds during polar winter by reducing the cloud amount under very dry conditions. During winter, freezedry decreases the low cloud amount over the coldest regions in high latitudes by over 50% locally and more than 30% averaged across the Arctic (Fig. 1). The cloud reduction causes an Arctic-wide drop of 15 W m{sup -2} in surface cloud radiative forcing (CRF) during winter and about a 50% decrease in mean annual Arctic CRF. Consequently, wintertime surface temperatures fall by up to 4 K on land and 2-8 K over the Arctic Ocean, thus significantly reducing the model's pronounced warm bias (Fig. 1). While improving the polar climate simulation in CCSM3, freezedry has virtually no influence outside of very cold regions (Fig. 2) or during summer (Fig. 3), which are space and time domains that were not targeted. Furthermore, the simplicity of this parameterization allows it to be readily incorporated into other GCMs, many of which also suffer from excessive wintertime polar cloudiness, based on the results from the CMIP3 archive (Vavrus et al., 2008). Freezedry also affects CCSM3's sensitivity to greenhouse forcing. In a transient-CO{sub 2} experiment, the model version with freezedry warms up to 20% less in the North Polar and South Polar regions (1.5 K and 0.5 K smaller warming, respectively) (Fig. 4). Paradoxically, the muted high-latitude response occurs despite a much larger increase in cloud amount with freezedry during non-summer months (when clouds warm the surface), apparently because of the colder modern reference climate. These results of the freezedry parameterization have recently been published (Vavrus and D. Waliser, 2008: An improved parameterization for simulating Arctic cloud amount in the CCSM3 climate model. J. Climate, 21, 5673-5687.). The article also provides a novel synthesis of surface- and satellite-based Arctic cloud observations that show how much the new freezedry parameterization improves the simulated cloud amount in high latitudes (Fig. 3). Freezedry has been incorporated into the CCSM3.5 version, in which it successfully limits the excessive polar clouds, and may be used in CCSM4. Material from this work is also appearing in a synthesis article on future Arctic cloud changes (Vavrus, D. Waliser, J. Francis, and A. Schweiger, 'Simulations of 20th and 21st century Arctic cloud amount in the global climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4', accepted in Climate Dynamics) and was used in a collaborative paper on Arctic cloud-sea ice coupling (Schweiger, A., R. Lindsay, S. Vavrus, and J. Francis, 2008: Relationships between Arctic sea ice and clouds during autumn. J. Climate, 21, 4799-4810.). This research was presented at the 2007 CCSM Annual Workshop, as well as the CCSM's 2007 Atmospheric Model Working Group and Polar Working Group Meetings. The findings were also shown at the 2007 Climate Change Prediction Program's Science Team Meeting. In addition, I served as an instructor at the International Arctic Research Center's (IARC) Summer School on Arctic Climate Modeling in Fairbanks this summer, where I presented on the challenges and techniques used in simulating polar clouds. I also contributed to the development of a new Arctic System Model by attending a workshop in Colorado this summer on this fledgling project. Finally, an outreach activity for the general public has been the development of an interactive web site (<http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/model/visualization/ipcc/>) that displays Arctic cloud amount in the CMIP3 climate model archive under present and future scenarios. This site allows users to make polar and global maps of a variety of climate variables to investigate the individual and ensemble-mean GCM response to greenhouse warming and the extent to which models adequately represent Arctic clouds in the modern climate. This site was used extensively in the IARC summer school projects. This work has also led to a collaboration this year during a 4-month visit I made to NCAR through its Faculty Fellowship Program. I worked with scientists Marika Holland, David Bailey, Andrew Gettleman, and Jen Kay, who are researching polar climate and/or clouds. I met with this group frequently during my visit, leading to some fruitful interactions. This work led to the discovery of a tightly coupled response of clouds and sea ice during intervals of rapid sea ice loss in greenhouse simulations, as well as advising on the evolving CCSM3.5 to CCSM4 model development. This involvement with NCAR also led to a longer-term connection, as I have recently begun a two-year stint on the SSC for CCSM

Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming

New metrics and evidence are presented that support a linkage between rapid Arctic warming, relative to Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, and more frequent high-amplitude (wavy) jet-stream configurations that favor persistent weather patterns. We find robust relationships among seasonal and regional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase

Spring plant phenology and false springs in the conterminous US during the 21st century

The onset of spring plant growth has shifted earlier in the year over the past several decades due to rising global temperatures. Earlier spring onset may cause phenological mismatches between the availability of plant resources and dependent animals, and potentially lead to more false springs, when subsequent freezing temperatures damage new plant growth. We used the extended spring indices to project changes in spring onset, defined by leaf out and by first bloom, and predicted false springs until 2100 in the conterminous United States (US) using statistically-downscaled climate projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 ensemble. Averaged over our study region, the median shift in spring onset was 23 days earlier in the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 scenario with particularly large shifts in the Western US and the Great Plains. Spatial variation in phenology was due to the influence of short-term temperature changes around the time of spring onset versus season-long accumulation of warm temperatures. False spring risk increased in the Great Plains and portions of the Midwest, but remained constant or decreased elsewhere. We conclude that global climate change may have complex and spatially variable effects on spring onset and false springs, making local predictions of change difficult