Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
DOI | 10.1007/s10584-017-2086-x |
How reliable are GCM simulations for different atmospheric variables? | |
Eghdamirad, Sajjad1; Johnson, Fiona2; Sharma, Ashish2 | |
2017-11-01 | |
发表期刊 | CLIMATIC CHANGE |
ISSN | 0165-0009 |
EISSN | 1573-1480 |
出版年 | 2017 |
卷号 | 145 |
文章类型 | Article |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | South Korea; Australia |
英文摘要 | Considerable variability exists in simulations of the future climate. This variability is caused by differences in the parameterisations across general circulation models (GCMs), the initial conditions used and the different assumptions made as to how emissions will evolve in the future. As a result, there is considerable disagreement between available projections of climate variables, which can be used to quantify the uncertainty each variable exhibits. This leads to the question-which variables (or set of variables) are more reliable for use in climate change impact assessments. This research presents a framework to quantify the relative reliability amongst a range of upper air atmospheric variables. This is made possible by pooling simulations across multiple models, trajectories (scenarios) and initial conditions in a rank-transformed space. A metric named the variable reliability score (VRS) assesses the relative reliabilities across different atmospheric variables on a common scale. The VRS has been applied to calculate the total reliability as well as reliability from each source of uncertainty, namely model, scenarios and initial conditions. This comparison helps to decide if more models, scenarios or ensembles are required for uncertainty analysis of climate change impact assessment. The variables compared include geopotential height and its north-south difference, specific humidity, eastward wind and northward wind, all at the 500 and 850 hPa pressure levels. These variables were chosen based on availability of data and their documented use in previous climate change impact assessment studies worldwide. A regional assessment of VRS over 21 regions around the world shows that though the magnitude of VRS varies spatially, the ranked reliability of the variable rank remains relatively similar. On average, the lowest reliability is associated with geopotential height, whilst wind speeds and the north-south difference of geopotential height have higher reliability. |
英文关键词 | Climate change GCM Reliability VRS Regional uncertainty Statistically downscaling |
领域 | 气候变化 |
收录类别 | SCI-E |
WOS记录号 | WOS:000415031800017 |
WOS关键词 | CIRCULATION MODEL OUTPUTS ; GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS ; PRECIPITATION ; UNCERTAINTIES ; IMPACT ; HINDCASTS ; AUSTRALIA ; SKILL |
WOS类目 | Environmental Sciences ; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences |
WOS研究方向 | Environmental Sciences & Ecology ; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences |
引用统计 | |
文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/29870 |
专题 | 气候变化 |
作者单位 | 1.Korea Univ, Res Ctr Disaster & Sci Technol, Seoul 136713, South Korea; 2.Univ New South Wales, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Eghdamirad, Sajjad,Johnson, Fiona,Sharma, Ashish. How reliable are GCM simulations for different atmospheric variables?[J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE,2017,145. |
APA | Eghdamirad, Sajjad,Johnson, Fiona,&Sharma, Ashish.(2017).How reliable are GCM simulations for different atmospheric variables?.CLIMATIC CHANGE,145. |
MLA | Eghdamirad, Sajjad,et al."How reliable are GCM simulations for different atmospheric variables?".CLIMATIC CHANGE 145(2017). |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。
修改评论