Improved surface temperature prediction for the coming decade from a global climate model

Science

Volumn 317, Issue 5839, 2007, Pages 796-799

  Smith, Doug M ^a   Cusack, Stephen ^a   Colman, Andrew W ^a   Folland, Chris K ^a   Harris, Glen R ^a   Murphy, James M ^a  

^a MET OFFICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE MODELING; GLOBAL CLIMATE; GLOBAL WARMING; HUMAN ACTIVITY; SURFACE TEMPERATURE;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; FORCE; GLOBAL CLIMATE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKILL; TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT;

EID: 34547903564     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. S. Solomon et al., Eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).
2. M. Collins, M. R. Allen, J. Clim. 15, 3104 (2002).
3. P. A. Stott et al., Science 290, 2133 (2000).
4. U. Cubasch et al., in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 525-582.
5. G. A. Meehl et al., in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007), pp. 747-845.
6. S. M. Griffies, K. Bryan, Science 275, 181 (1997).
7. A. Grötzner, M. Latif, A. Timmermann, R. Voss, J. Clim. 12, 2607 (1999).
8. M. Collins, B. Sinha, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1306 (2003).
9. M. Latif et al., J. Clim. 17, 1605 (2004).
10. H. Pohlmann et al., J. Clim. 17, 4463 (2004).
11. G. J. Boer, Clim. Dyn. 23, 29 (2004).
12. S. B. Power, R. Colman, X. Wang, P. Hope, Predictions in Ungauged Basins: International Perspectives on the State of the Art and Pathways Forward, M. Franks, K. Sivapalan, K. Takeuchi, Y. Tachkawa, Eds. (Publication 301, International Association of Hydrological Science, Wallingford, UK, 2005).
13. T. N. Palmer et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 85, 853 (2004).
14. F. W. Zwiers, Nature 416, 690 (2002).
15. T. C. K. Lee, F. W. Zwiers, X. Zhang, M. Tsao, J. Clim. 19, 5305 (2006).
16. P. A. Stott, J. A. Kettleborough, Nature 416, 723 (2002).
17. C. Gordon et al., Clim. Dyn. 16, 147 (2000).
18. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
19. T. C. Johns et al., Clim. Dyn. 20, 583 (2003).
20. Solar irradiance is projected by repeating the previous 11-year solar cycle. Volcanic aerosol is projected as an exponential decay with an e-folding time scale of 1 year. Our hindcasts therefore do not use solar or volcanic information that would not have been available at the time.
21. We use the term "hindcast" to refer to a forecast made retrospectively using only data that would have been available at the time.
22. Our hindcast period ends in 2001 because our hindcasts are initialized using the 40-year ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) atmosphere reanalysis (18), the last complete year of which is 2001.
23. The ensemble size for both DePreSys and NoAssim was further increased by combining with hindcasts from previous seasons. For hindcasts of the coming year, we combine two seasons, giving eight ensemble members. For longer lead times, we combine four seasons, giving 16 ensemble members.
24. i is the error of the ensemble mean for each hindcast i averaged over the required spatial region.
25. DePreSys is designed to avoid trends during forecasts caused by systematic model errors. This is achieved by assimilating observed anomalies added to the model climatology and removing the model climatology to produce forecast anomalies. The climatological period is 1979-2001 for the atmosphere and 1941-1996 for the ocean. Further details are given in (18).
26. A. J. Simmons, A. Hollingsworth, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 128, 647 (2002).
27. The confidence interval shown by the red shading in Figs. 2 and 4 should not be confused with the significance limits shown by the blue shading in Fig. 1. The confidence interval is a measure of the uncertainty in a forecast at a single time. The significance limits measure the uncertainty in differences between the skill of NoAssim and DePreSys averaged over all hindcasts.
28. D. E. Parker, H. Wilson, P. D. Jones, J. R. Christy, C. K. Folland, Int. J. Climatol. 16, 487 (1996).
29. G. R. Harris et al., Clim. Dyn. 27, 357 (2006).
30. s during the first 5 years of each hindcast. The RMSE values are 0.030 and 0.038°C per year for DePreSys and NoAssim respectively, with the difference being significant at the 5% level.
31. S. Levitus, J. Antonov, T. Boyer, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L02604 (2005).
32. S. Wilson, Oceanus 42, 17 (2000).
33. Model errors, such as those arising from uncertainties in climate change feedbacks (35), are liable to cause biases in predicted changes. We found a modest time-dependent bias in DePreSys hindcasts, unaffected by major volcanic eruptions, rising to 0.07° ± 0.02°C for year 9 (fig. S6) and removed this from both DePreSys and NoAssim forecasts (Fig. 4).
34. s as compared to our forecast.
35. B. J. Soden, I. M. Held, J. Clim. 19, 3354 (2006).
36. C. K. Folland et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2621 (2001).
37. D. E. Parker, L. V. Alexander, J. Kennedy, Weather 59, 145 (2004).
38. P. D. Jones, A. Moberg, J. Clim. 16, 206 (2003).
39. D. M. Smith, J. M. Murphy, J. Geophys. Res. 112, C02022 (2007).
40. We thank many colleagues in the Met Office for developing the climate models and for help and advice during the course of this work. This work was supported by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by the UK Government Meteorological Research Programme.