Regional scaling of annual mean precipitation and water availability with global temperature change

Abstract. Changes in regional water availability belong to the most crucial potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change, but are highly uncertain. It is thus of key importance for stakeholders to assess the possible implications of different global temperature thresholds on these quantities. Using a subset of climate model simulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), we derive here the sensitivity of regional changes in precipitation and in precipitation minus evapotranspiration to global temperature changes. The simulations span the full range of available emission scenarios, and the sensitivities are derived using a modified pattern scaling approach. The applied approach assumes linear relationships on global temperature changes while thoroughly addressing associated uncertainties via resampling methods. This allows us to assess the full distribution of the simulations in a probabilistic sense. Northern high-latitude regions display robust responses towards wetting, while subtropical regions display a tendency towards drying but with a large range of responses. Even though both internal variability and the scenario choice play an important role in the overall spread of the simulations, the uncertainty stemming from the climate model choice usually accounts for about half of the total uncertainty in most regions. We additionally assess the implications of limiting global mean temperature warming to values below (i) 2 K or (ii) 1.5 K (as stated within the 2015 Paris Agreement). We show that opting for the 1.5 K target might just slightly influence the mean response, but could substantially reduce the risk of experiencing extreme changes in regional water availability.

[1]  Jonathan M. Gregory,et al.  A Surface Energy Perspective on Climate Change , 2009 .

[2]  B. Kravitz,et al.  Exploring precipitation pattern scaling methodologies and robustness among CMIP5 models , 2016 .

[3]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets , 2016, Nature.

[4]  S. Solomon,et al.  Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Michael E. Schlesinger,et al.  Developing climate scenarios from equilibrium GCM results , 1990 .

[6]  Josyane Ronchail,et al.  Wavelet analysis of Amazon hydrological regime variability , 2004 .

[7]  E. Hawkins,et al.  The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions , 2009 .

[8]  B. Liepert,et al.  Inter-model variability and biases of the global water cycle in CMIP3 coupled climate models , 2012 .

[9]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Assessment of future changes in water availability and aridity , 2015, Geophysical research letters.

[10]  W. Cramer,et al.  Climate change: The 2015 Paris Agreement thresholds and Mediterranean basin ecosystems , 2016, Science.

[11]  T. Andrews,et al.  Changes in global‐mean precipitation in response to warming, greenhouse gas forcing and black carbon , 2011 .

[12]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Changes in regional climate extremes as a function of global mean temperature: an interactive plotting framework , 2017 .

[13]  D. Hartmann,et al.  Global‐mean precipitation and black carbon in AR4 simulations , 2012 .

[14]  Claudia Tebaldi,et al.  Pattern scaling: Its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations , 2014, Climatic Change.

[15]  David G. Victor,et al.  Climate policy: Ditch the 2 °C warming goal , 2014, Nature.

[16]  E. Fischer,et al.  Models agree on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature extremes , 2014 .

[17]  A. Steiner,et al.  Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Foreword , 2012 .

[18]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[19]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections , 2012 .

[20]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  Pattern Scaling: An Examination of the Accuracy of the Technique for Describing Future Climates , 2003 .

[21]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Characterizing half‐a‐degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets , 2017 .

[22]  B. Sanderson,et al.  Does extreme precipitation intensity depend on the emissions scenario? , 2015 .

[23]  E. Fischer,et al.  A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target , 2016 .

[24]  Reto Knutti,et al.  Improved pattern scaling approaches for the use in climate impact studies , 2015 .

[25]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment , 2010, Nature.

[26]  P. Good,et al.  Large differences in regional precipitation change between a first and second 2 K of global warming , 2016, Nature Communications.

[27]  E. Fischer,et al.  Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C , 2015 .

[28]  B. Liepert,et al.  CMIP5 update of ‘Inter-model variability and biases of the global water cycle in CMIP3 coupled climate models’ , 2013 .