Twenty‐first century changes in daily temperature variability in CMIP3 climate models

Changes in the daily mean surface air temperature distribution between the time periods 1981–2000 and 2081–2100 in 15 climate model simulations participating in the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) are analysed. Variability is defined by first removing the annual cycle after which the range and skewness of the temperature distribution are calculated. Present-day biases for the different aspects of the distribution are also studied, using the ERA-Interim reanalysis as the main reference dataset. The variability in the simulations compared to reanalysis is generally smaller over oceans and larger over land areas. For skewness of the temperature distribution, inter-model variability is much larger and systematic model biases are more local. Model performance regarding the mean values is potentially a good indicator of the model performance for range, but for skewness this relation is weaker. For future changes in the range of daily temperature variability, the models agree best over the Northern Hemisphere mid- to high-latitude land areas, where variability is simulated to decrease. Elsewhere, the inter-model differences are generally larger than the multi-model mean changes. Near the sea ice border, significant negative correlations are found between the changes in mean temperature and the temperature range. For changes in skewness, the signal-to-noise ratio is very low over most areas and no firm conclusions can be drawn from the ensemble results. Our results are relatively insensitive to the precise definition of the range and skewness metrics and to internal variability of climate.

[1]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Global changes in extreme events: regional and seasonal dimension , 2012, Climatic Change.

[2]  Martin Wild,et al.  Evaluation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment soil moisture simulations for the second half of the twentieth century , 2007 .

[3]  A. Sterl,et al.  The ERA‐40 re‐analysis , 2005 .

[4]  R. Knutti,et al.  Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections , 2013 .

[5]  Markku Rummukainen,et al.  Changes in climate and weather extremes in the 21st century , 2012 .

[6]  S. Kravtsov,et al.  Multidecadal Climate Variability in Observed and Modeled Surface Temperatures , 2008 .

[7]  T. Reichler,et al.  How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate? , 2008 .

[8]  A. Hense,et al.  A Bayesian Assessment of Climate Change Using Multimodel Ensembles. Part II: Regional and Seasonal Mean Surface Temperatures , 2007 .

[9]  J. Räisänen CO2-Induced Climate Change in CMIP2 Experiments: Quantification of Agreement and Role of Internal Variability , 2001 .

[10]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: A review , 2010 .

[11]  G. Meehl,et al.  Going to the Extremes , 2006 .

[12]  Suraje Dessai,et al.  Limited sensitivity analysis of regional climate change probabilities for the 21st century , 2005 .

[13]  Marie Bessec,et al.  The non-linear link between electricity consumption and temperature in Europe: A threshold panel approach , 2008 .

[14]  Tianjun Zhou,et al.  Twentieth-Century Surface Air Temperature over China and the Globe Simulated by Coupled Climate Models , 2006 .

[15]  Reto Knutti,et al.  Challenges in Combining Projections from Multiple Climate Models , 2010 .

[16]  Charles Doutriaux,et al.  Performance metrics for climate models , 2008 .

[17]  T. Fichefet,et al.  Sea ice evolution over the 20th and 21st centuries as simulated by current AOGCMs , 2006 .

[18]  M. Schaeffer,et al.  Shifts of means are not a proxy for changes in extreme winter temperatures in climate projections , 2005 .

[19]  M. Haylock,et al.  Change in mean temperature as a predictor of extreme temperature change in the Asia–Pacific region , 2005 .

[20]  R. Katz,et al.  Extreme events in a changing climate: Variability is more important than averages , 1992 .

[21]  J. Annan,et al.  Reliability of the CMIP3 ensemble , 2010 .

[22]  W. Connolley THE ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURE INVERSION , 1996 .

[23]  J. V. Revadekar,et al.  Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation , 2006 .

[24]  Andrew J. Pitman,et al.  Ranking the AR4 climate models over the Murray‐Darling Basin using simulated maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation , 2008 .

[25]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[26]  A. Pitman,et al.  Ranking climate models by performance using actual values and anomalies: Implications for climate change impact assessments , 2010 .

[27]  W. Collins,et al.  The NCEP–NCAR 50-Year Reanalysis: Monthly Means CD-ROM and Documentation , 2001 .

[28]  A. Pitman,et al.  Evaluation of the AR4 Climate Models’ Simulated Daily Maximum Temperature, Minimum Temperature, and Precipitation over Australia Using Probability Density Functions , 2007 .

[29]  Jouni Räisänen,et al.  Weighting of model results for improving best estimates of climate change , 2010 .

[30]  G. Hegerl,et al.  Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the IPCC ensemble of global coupled model simulations , 2007 .

[31]  Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola,et al.  Climate change and electricity consumption--Witnessing increasing or decreasing use and costs? , 2010 .

[32]  J. Räisänen CO2-Induced Changes in Interannual Temperature and Precipitation Variability in 19 CMIP2 Experiments , 2002 .

[33]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research , 2007 .