Identifying credible and diverse GCMs for regional climate change studies—case study: Northeastern United States
- 839 Downloads
Climate data obtained from global climate models (GCMs) form the basis of most studies of regional climate change and its impacts. Using the northeastern U.S. as a test case, we develop a framework to systematically sub-select reliable models for use in climate change studies in the region. Model performance over the historical period is evaluated first for a wide variety of standard and process metrics including large-scale atmospheric circulation features that drive regional climate variability. The inclusion of process-based metrics allows identification of credible models in capturing key processes relevant for the climate of the northeastern U.S. Model performance is then used in conjunction with the assessment of redundancy in model projections, especially in summer precipitation, to eliminate models that have better performing counterparts. Finally, we retain some mixed-performing models to maintain the range of climate model uncertainty, required by the fact that model biases are not strongly related to their respective projections. This framework leads to the retention of 16 of 36 CMIP5 GCMs that (a) have a satisfactory historical performance for a variety of metrics and (b) provide diverse climate projections consistent with uncertainties in the multi-model ensemble (MME). Overall, the models show significant variations in their performance across metrics and seasons with none emerging as the best model in all metrics. The retained set reduces the number of models by more than one half, easing the computational burden of using the entire CMIP5 MME, while still maintaining a wide range of projections for risk assessment. The retention of some mixed-performing models to maintain ensemble uncertainty suggests a potential to narrow the ranges in temperature and precipitation. But any further refinement should be based on a more detailed analysis of models in capturing regional climate variability and extremes to avoid providing overconfident projections.
We acknowledge the WCRP Working Group on Coupled Modelling, and thank the climate modeling centers for producing and making available model output. We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their careful review and insightful comments that have helped improve the manuscript substantially.
This research was supported by the U.S. DOI’s Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center by Grant or Cooperative Agreement No. G12AC00001 from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and in part by NSF CAREER Award No. 1056216. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors.
- Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res Atmos 113(D06104). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972
- Horton R, Yohe G, Easterling W, Kates R, Ruth M, Sussman E, Whelchel A, Wolfe D, Lipschultz F (2014) Ch. 16: Northeast. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, pp 371–395Google Scholar
- Kay J, Deser C, Phillips A, Mai A, Hannay C, Strand G, Arblaster J, Bates S, Danabasoglu G, Edwards J et al (2015) The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: A community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96(8):1333–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Knutti R, Sedláček J, Sanderson BM, Lorenz R, Fischer EM, Eyring V (2017) A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence. Geophys Res Lett 44(4):1909– 1918Google Scholar
- Masson D, Knutti R (2011) Climate model genealogy. Geophys Res Lett 38(L08703). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864
- Matsuura K, Willmott CJ (2012) Terrestrial precipitation: 1900-2010 gridded monthly time series (v. 3.01). Center for Climatic Research, Department of Geography, University of Delaware Newark, DE, USAGoogle Scholar
- Rupp DE, Abatzoglou JT, Hegewisch KC, Mote PW (2013) Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA. J Geophys Res: Atmos 118(19):10–884Google Scholar
- Staudinger MD, Morelli TL, Bryan AM (2015) Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest state wildlife action plans. DOI Northeast Climate Science Center Report, AmherstGoogle Scholar
- Thibeault JM, Seth A (2015) Toward the credibility of Northeast United States summer precipitation projections in CMIP5 and NARCCAP simulations. J Geophys Res Atmos 120(19):10050–10073. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023177
- Wallace JM, Deser C, Smoliak BV, Phillips AS (2016) Attribution of climate change in the presence of internal variability. In: Climate change: Multidecadal and Beyond, World Scientific, pp 1–29Google Scholar
- Wuebbles D, Fahey D, Hibbard K, Dokken B, Stewart B, Maycock T (2017) Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment, Volume I. In: Washington, DC, pp 470Google Scholar