Two key sources of uncertainty in projections of future runoff for climate change impact assessments are uncertainty between Global Climate Models (GCMs) and within a GCM. Uncertainty between GCM projections of future climate can be assessed through analysis of runs of a given scenario from a wide range of GCMs. Within GCM uncertainty is the variability in GCM output that occurs when running a scenario multiple times but each run has slightly different, but equally plausible, initial conditions. The objective of this, the first of two complementary papers, is to reduce between-GCM uncertainty by identifying and removing poorly performing GCMs prior to the analysis presented in the second paper. Here we assess how well 46 runs from 22 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) GCMs are able to reproduce observed precipitation and temperature climatological statistics. The performance of each GCM in reproducing these statistics was ranked and better performing GCMs identified for later analyses. Observed global land surface precipitation and temperature data were drawn from the CRU 3.10 gridded dataset and re-sampled to the resolution of each GCM for comparison. Observed and GCM based estimates of mean and standard deviation of annual precipitation, mean annual temperature, mean monthly precipitation and temperature and Köppen climate type were compared. The main metrics for assessing GCM performance were the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index and RMSE between modelled and observed long-term statistics. This information combined with a literature review of the performance of the CMIP3 models identified the following five models as the better performing models for the next phase of our analysis in assessing the uncertainty in runoff estimated from GCM projections of precipitation and temperature: HadCM3 (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research), MIROCM (Center for Climate System Research (The University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Frontier Research Center for Global Change), MIUB (Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, Meteorological Research Institute of KMA, and Model and Data group), MPI (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) and MRI (Japan Meteorological Research Institute).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McMahon et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: