Climatic Change

, Volume 81, Supplement 1, pp 193–208 | Cite as

GCM-based regional temperature and precipitation change estimates for Europe under four SRES scenarios applying a super-ensemble pattern-scaling method

  • Kimmo Ruosteenoja
  • Heikki Tuomenvirta
  • Kirsti Jylhä


Seasonal GCM-based temperature and precipitation projections for the end of the 21st century are presented for five European regions; projections are compared with corresponding estimates given by the PRUDENCE RCMs. For most of the six global GCMs studied, only responses to the SRES A2 and B2 forcing scenarios are available. To formulate projections for the A1FI and B1 forcing scenarios, a super-ensemble pattern-scaling technique has been developed. This method uses linear regression to represent the relationship between the local GCM-simulated response and the global mean temperature change simulated by a simple climate model. The method has several advantages: e.g., the noise caused by internal variability is reduced, and the information provided by GCM runs performed with various forcing scenarios is utilized effectively. The super-ensemble method proved especially useful when only one A2 and one B2 simulation is available for an individual GCM. Next, 95% probability intervals were constructed for regional temperature and precipitation change, separately for the four forcing scenarios, by fitting a normal distribution to the set of projections calculated by the GCMs. For the high-end of the A1FI uncertainty interval, temperature increases close to 10°C could be expected in the southern European summer and northern European winter. Conversely, the low-end warming estimates for the B1 scenario are ~ 1°C. The uncertainty intervals of precipitation change are quite broad, but the mean estimate is one of a marked increase in the north in winter and a drastic reduction in the south in summer. In the RCM simulations driven by a single global model, the spread of the temperature and precipitation projections tends to be smaller than that in the GCM simulations, but it is possible to reduce this disparity by employing several driving models for all RCMs. In the present suite of simulations, the difference between the mean GCM and RCM projections is fairly small, regardless of the number or driving models applied.


Ensemble Member Precipitation Change Internal Variability Probability Interval Driving 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. Christensen JH, Carter TR, Rummukainen M (2007) Evaluating the performance and utility of regional climate models: the PRUDENCE project. Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9211-6 (this issue)
  2. Déqué M, Rowell DP, Lüthi D, Giorgi F, Christensen JH, Rockel B, Jacob D, Kjellström E, de Castro M, van den Hurk B (2007) An intercomparison of regional climate simulations for Europe: assessing uncertainties in model projections. Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9228-x (this issue)
  3. Giorgi F, Mearns LO (2003) Probability of regional climate change based on the Reliability Ensemble Averaging (REA) method. Geophys Res Lett 30(12):1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hingray B, Mezghani A, Buishand TA (2007) Development of probability distributions for regional climate change from uncertain global mean warming and an uncertain scaling relationship. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Huntingford C, Cox PM (2000) An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim Dyn 16:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 881Google Scholar
  7. Mitchell JFB, Johns TC, Eagles M, Ingram WJ, Davis RA (1999) Towards the construction of climate change scenarios. Clim Change 41:547–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mitchell TD (2003) Pattern scaling. An examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim Change 60:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. New M, Hulme M (2000) Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios: a Monte–Carlo approach. Integrated Assessment 1:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ruosteenoja K, Carter TR, Jylhä K, Tuomenvirta H (2003) Future climate in world regions: an intercomparison of model-based projections for the new IPCC emissions scenarios. The Finnish Environment vol 644, Finnish Environment Institute p 83Google Scholar
  12. Vining GG (1998) Statistical methods for engineers. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA p 479Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimmo Ruosteenoja
    • 1
  • Heikki Tuomenvirta
    • 1
  • Kirsti Jylhä
    • 1
  1. 1.Finnish Meteorological InstituteHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations