Simulated increase of hurricane intensities in a CO2-warmed climate

Science

Volumn 279, Issue 5353, 1998, Pages 1018-1020

  Knutson, Thomas R ^a   Tuleya, Robert E ^a   Kurihara, Yoshio ^a  

^a NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HURRICANE INTENSITIES; MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INTENSITY; SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES; SURFACE PRESSURE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; STORMS;

HURRICANES;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMAGE CHANGE; CLIMATE CHANGE; GLOBAL WARMING; HURRIANCE; HURRICANE;

AIR TEMPERATURE; ARTICLE; CLIMATE; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEA;

PACIFIC;

EID: 0032512768     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5353.1018     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. K. A. Emanuel, Nature 326, 483 (1987).
2. A. Henderson-Sellers et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., in press.
3. R. J. Haarsma, J. F. B. Mitchell, C. A. Senior, Clim. Dyn. 8, 247 (1993).
4. L. Bengtsson, M. Botzet, M. Esch, Tellus 48A, 57 (1996).
5. A. J. Broccoli and S. Manabe, Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1917 (1990).
6. K. A. Emanuel, J. Atmos. Sci. 43, 585 (1986); ibid. 45, 1143 (1988); ibid. 52, 3969 (1995).
7. K. A. Emanuel, J. Atmos. Sci. 43, 585 (1986); ibid. 45, 1143 (1988); ibid. 52, 3969 (1995).
8. K. A. Emanuel, J. Atmos. Sci. 43, 585 (1986); ibid. 45, 1143 (1988); ibid. 52, 3969 (1995).
9. G. Holland, ibid. 54, 2519 (1997).
10. A. Kattenberg et al., in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996).
11. 2 samples. This was done because a preliminary study of 20 cases showed that a relatively small sample of storms taken over a larger region could have substantial differences in track statistics as a result of the small sample size, which could lead to bias in the intensity comparisons. The strongest global model storm case for a particular pre-specified month and year was selected, with the sampling designed to spread the cases evenly over the 51 available years (one case per year) and across the calendar months of July through November.
12. S. Manabe, R. J. Stouffer, M. J. Spelman, K. Bryan, J. Clim. 4, 785 (1991).
13. T. R. Knutson and S. Manabe, ibid., in press.
14. 2 levels increased at +1% per year compounded (that is, by a factor of 2.57 by year 95). Data from the years 70 to 120 of these two experiments provided the initial conditions and time-dependent boundary conditions for the regional model case studies.
15. A. J. Broccoli and S. Manabe, Geophys. Res. Letters 19, 1525 (1992).
16. Y. Kurihara, R. E. Tuleya, M. A. Bender, Mon. Weather Rev., in press.
17. 2 level in the hurricane model was adjusted to the appropriate level for each particular case. As well as differing in spatial resolution, the global and regional models differ in model physics, diurnal variation, and so on.
18. M. A. Bender, R. J. Ross, R. E. Tuleya, Y. Kurihara, Mon. Weather Rev. 121, 2046 (1993).
19. In the vortex replacement procedure, the case study storms from the global model were traced back for 2 to 4 days from the time of maximum intensity to an earlier stage of development (at least one closed-surface isobar, using a 4-mb contour interval). The global model storm - but not the background environmental flow fields - was then filtered out and replaced by a more realistic disturbance vortex as an initial condition. The replacement vortex was generated with the GFDL hurricane model's initialization scheme (16), using an identical target disturbance (maximum wind 17.5 m/s at a radius of 175 km) for each case. This procedure is analogous to that presently used for hurricane prediction at NCEP, except that in the operational case the disturbance target is based on actual storm observations and the global fields are derived from operational analyses.
20. S. Siegel and N. J. Castellan, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (McGraw-Hill, New York, ed. 2, 1988).
21. The one-sided two-sample KS test was implemented with the use of the Numerical Algorithms Group library routine G08CDF.
22. T. R. Knutson, R. E. Tuleya, Y. Kurihara, data not shown.
23. The available distribution for the tests at each hour consisted of cases that had not been screened out for that hour. We screened from each storm case sample any time periods in which the storm had been located over a major land mass within the past 6 hours or was located north of 30°N (where higher environmental vertical wind shear and lower SSTs are generally found). No attempt was made to exclude cases in which the primary storm interacted with another weather system.
24. Confidence intervals (95%) for the fifth strongest storm measure were estimated separately for each model integration hour on the basis of 10,000 random "bootstrap" resamples with replacement (23) of the available sample for that hour. Similar results were obtained using the fourth or sixth strongest storm.
25. B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, Science 253, 390 (1991).
26. In order to minimize the imbalance between wind and mass fields in both the case study and the idealized approach, the surface pressure and the temperature fields were recomputed at the end of the vortex replacement procedure by solving a form of the reverse balance equation.
27. J. Lighthill et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 75, 2147 (1994).
28. We thank J. D. Mahlman for support and advice on our project; A. Broccoli, I. Held, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript; and K. Emanuel and G. Holland for providing their MPI codes.