Using numerical weather prediction to assess climate models

Estimates of climate change remain uncertain—hampering strategic decision making in many sectors. In large part this uncertainty arises from uncertainty in the computational representation of known physical processes. This model component of climate change uncertainty is increasingly being assessed using perturbed model experiments. Some such model perturbations have, for example, led to headline global warming estimates of as much as 12 °C. These experiments consider many differently perturbed versions of a given base model and assess the likelihood of each perturbed model's climate prediction based on how well it simulates present-day climate. In these experiments, the computational cost of the model assessment is extremely high unless one assumes that the climate anomalies associated with different model perturbations can be combined linearly. Here we demonstrate a different method, which harnesses the power of the data assimilation system to assess directly the perturbed physics of a model. Data assimilation involves the incorporation of daily observations to produce initial conditions (analyses) for numerical weather prediction (NWP). The method used here quantifies systematic initial tendencies in the first few time steps of a model forecast. After suitable temporal averaging, these initial tendencies imply systematic imbalances in the physical processes associated with model error. We show how these tendencies can be used to produce probability weightings for each model that could be used in the construction of probability distribution functions of climate change. The approach typically costs 5% of the cost of a 100-year coupled model simulation that might otherwise be used to assess the simulation of present-day climate. Importantly, since the approach is amenable to linear analysis, it could further reduce the cost of model assessment by several orders of magnitude: making the exercise computationally feasible. The initial tendency approach can only assess ‘fast physics’ perturbations, i.e. perturbations that have an impact on weather forecasts as well as climate. However, recent publications suggest that most of the present model parameter uncertainty is associated with fast physics. If such a test were adopted, assessment of the ability to simulate present-day climate would then only be required for models that ‘pass’ the fast physics test. The study highlights the advantages of a more seamless approach to forecasting that combines NWP, climate forecasting, and all scales in-between. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

[1]  T. Palmer,et al.  Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system , 2007 .

[2]  W. Rossow,et al.  ISCCP Cloud Data Products , 1991 .

[3]  Renate Hagedorn,et al.  Representing model uncertainty in weather and climate prediction , 2005 .

[4]  Michael E. Schlesinger,et al.  Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity , 2001 .

[5]  J. Janowiak,et al.  The Version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Precipitation Analysis (1979-Present) , 2003 .

[6]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[7]  T. Palmer A nonlinear dynamical perspective on model error: A proposal for non‐local stochastic‐dynamic parametrization in weather and climate prediction models , 2001 .

[8]  M. Collins,et al.  Projections of future climate change , 2002 .

[9]  M. Webb,et al.  Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations , 2004, Nature.

[10]  A. Haines Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Book review] , 2003 .

[11]  Prashant D. Sardeshmukh,et al.  The Diagnosis of Mechanical Dissipation in the Atmosphere from Large-Scale Balance Requirements , 1992 .

[12]  G. Müller,et al.  The Scientific Basis , 1995 .

[13]  James D. Annan,et al.  Efficiently Constraining Climate Sensitivity with Ensembles of Paleoclimate Simulations , 2005 .

[14]  Leonard A. Smith,et al.  Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases , 2005, Nature.

[15]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Causes of twentieth-century temperature change near the Earth's surface , 1999, Nature.

[16]  W. Paul Menzel,et al.  The MODIS cloud products: algorithms and examples from Terra , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[17]  A. Simmons,et al.  The ECMWF operational implementation of four‐dimensional variational assimilation. I: Experimental results with simplified physics , 2007 .

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

[19]  Klaus Gierens,et al.  Ice supersaturation in the ECMWF integrated forecast system , 2007 .

[20]  Julia C. Hargreaves,et al.  Parameter estimation in an atmospheric GCM using the Ensemble , 2005 .

[21]  T. Wigley,et al.  Reasons for Larger Warming Projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report , 2002 .

[22]  H. Storch,et al.  Statistical Analysis in Climate Research , 2000 .

[23]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Evaluating Parameterizations in General Circulation Models: Climate Simulation Meets Weather Prediction , 2004 .