Articles | Volume 10, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1889-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1889-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
12 May 2017
Methods for assessment of models |  | 12 May 2017

Exploring precipitation pattern scaling methodologies and robustness among CMIP5 models

Ben Kravitz, Cary Lynch, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty

Related authors

Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, and Temitope S. Egbebiyi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2406,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2406, 2023
Short summary
Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Introducing a Comprehensive Set of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Strategies
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa Bednarz, and Ben Kravitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-117,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-117, 2023
Short summary
Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 1: Experimental protocols and surface changes
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
An emulation-based approach for interrogating reactive transport models
Angus Fotherby, Harold J. Bradbury, Jennifer L. Druhan, and Alexandra V. Turchyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7059–7074, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7059-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7059-2023, 2023
Short summary
A sub-grid parameterization scheme for topographic vertical motion in CAM5-SE
Yaqi Wang, Lanning Wang, Juan Feng, Zhenya Song, Qizhong Wu, and Huaqiong Cheng
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6857–6873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6857-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6857-2023, 2023
Short summary
Technology to aid the analysis of large-volume multi-institute climate model output at a central analysis facility (PRIMAVERA Data Management Tool V2.10)
Jon Seddon, Ag Stephens, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Pier Luigi Vidale, and Malcolm J. Roberts
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6689–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023, 2023
Short summary
A diffusion-based kernel density estimator (diffKDE, version 1) with optimal bandwidth approximation for the analysis of data in geoscience and ecological research
Maria-Theresia Pelz, Markus Schartau, Christopher J. Somes, Vanessa Lampe, and Thomas Slawig
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6609–6634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6609-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6609-2023, 2023
Short summary
Monte Carlo drift correction – quantifying the drift uncertainty of global climate models
Benjamin S. Grandey, Zhi Yang Koh, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Benjamin P. Horton, Justin Dauwels, and Lock Yue Chew
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6593–6608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6593-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6593-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Barnes, E. A. and Barnes, R. J.: Estimating linear trends: Simple linear regression versus epoch differences, J. Climate, 28, 9969–9976, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0032.1, 2015.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013.
Cagnazzo, C., Manzini, E., Fogli, P. G., Vichi, M., and Davini, P.: Role of stratospheric dynamics in the ozone-carbon connection in the Southern Hemisphere, Clim. Dynam., 41, 3039–3054, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1745-5, 2013.
Castruccio, S., McInerney, D. J., Stein, M. L., Crouch, F. L., Jacob, R. L., and Moyer, E. J.: Statistical Emulation of Climate Model Projections Based on Precomputed GCM Runs, J. Climate, 27, 1829–1844, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00099.1, 2014.
Davini, P., Cagnazzo, C., Fogi, P. G., Manzini, E., Gualdi, S., and Navarra, A.: European blocking and Atlantic jet stream variability in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis and the CMCC-CMS climate model, Clim. Dynam., 43, 71–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1873-y, 2014.
Download
Short summary
Pattern scaling is a way of approximating regional changes without needing to run a full, complex global climate model. We compare two methods of pattern scaling for precipitation and evaluate which methods is better in particular circumstances. We also decompose precipitation into a CO2 portion and a non-CO2 portion. The methodologies discussed in this paper can help provide precipitation fields for other models for a wide variety of scenarios of future climate change.