Uncertainties in the simulation of 1.5℃ and 2℃warming threshold-crossing time arising from model internal variability based on CMIP5 models

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2018.157

Abstract

Abstract:

Model internal variability has been recognized as an important source of uncertainties of climate simulation results. However, the impact of model internal variability on the uncertainties in the simulation of 1.5℃ and 2℃ warming threshold-crossing time has not been explored to date. In this paper, such impact and the corresponding sensitivity to different future emission scenarios are investigated based on the outputs of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5) models. The results show that the effect of internal variability on uncertainties in the simulation of threshold-crossing time is equivalent to that of external forcing. The difference between the threshold-crossing time of model members reaching 1.5℃ or 2℃ global warming is 2-12 years. The influence of internal variability has a clear spatial distribution. Maximum uncertainties are observed at the ocean northern of Eurasia, the area around the Bering Strait, the northeastern North America and the ocean between it and Greenland, and the high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. Model internal variability causes greater uncertainties in the low emission scenario than the high emission scenario.

Key words: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5), 1.5℃ and 2℃ warming, Threshold-crossing time, Model internal variability

Di-Fei JI,Li LIU,Li-Juan LI,Chao SUN,Xin-Zhu YU,Rui-Zhe LI,Cheng ZHANG,Bin WANG. Uncertainties in the simulation of 1.5℃ and 2℃warming threshold-crossing time arising from model internal variability based on CMIP5 models[J]. Climate Change Research, 2019, 15(4): 343-351.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1 Model descriptions and simulation members

Fig. 1 The spatial distribution of 2℃ warming threshold-crossing time under RCP4.5 for CanESM2 the average of all members. a: northern Eurasia, b: western North America, c: Central Siberia,d: Tibet plateau

Table 2 Regions and their scopes

Table 3 The earliest and latest year to reach 1.5℃warming and standard deviation of all members for each model under RCP4.5 in different regions

Table 4 The earliest and latest year to reach 2℃ warming and standard deviation of all members for each model under RCP4.5 in different regions

Fig. 2 The spatial distribution for the standard deviation of 1.5℃ warming threshold-crossing time among all members for each model under RCP4.5

Table 5 Standard deviation and range of 1.5℃global warming threshold-crossing time among all members for each model under four emission scenarios

Table 6 Standard deviation and range of 2℃ global warming threshold-crossing time among all members for each model under four emission scenarios

References

[1]	IPCC. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013
[2]	UNFCCC. Communications received from parties in relation to the listing in the chapeau of the Copenhagen Accord [EB/OL]. 2010 [ 2012- 07- 05].
[3]	Randalls S . History of the 2℃ climate target[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 2010,1(4):598-605
[4]	Arora V K, Scinocca J F, Boer G J , et al. Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011,38(5):387-404
[5]	Baek H J, Lee J, Lee H S , et al. Climate change in the 21st century simulated by HadGEM2-AO under representative concentration pathways[J]. Asia-pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2013,49(5):603-618
[6]	Meehl G A, Washington W M, Arblaster J M , et al. Climate change projections in CESM1 (CAM5) compared to CCSM4[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013,26(17):6287-6308
[7]	Wang Z, Lin L, Zhang X , et al. Scenario dependence of future changes in climate extremes under 1.5 ℃ and 2 ℃ global warming[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017,7:46432
[8]	Hawkins E, Sutton R . The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2011,37(1-2):407-418
[9]	Deser C, Phillips A, Bourdette V , et al. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2012,38(3-4):527-546
[10]	Dai A, Bloecker C E . Impacts of internal variability on temperature and precipitation trends in large ensemble simulations by two climate models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2018 ( 365):1-18
[11]	Wittenberg A T . Are historical records sufficient to constrain ENSO simulations?[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2009,36(12):L12702
[12]	Deser C, Knutti R, Solomon S , et al. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2012,2(11):775-779
[13]	Deser C, Phillips A S, Alexander M A , et al. Projecting North American climate over the next 50 years: uncertainty due to internal variability[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013,27(6):2271-2296
[14]	Kang S M, Deser C, Polvani L M . Uncertainty in climate change projections of the hadley circulation: the role of internal variability[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013,26(19):7541-7554
[15]	Shepherd T G . Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2014,7(10):703-708
[16]	Schindler A, Toreti A, Scoccimarro E , et al. On the internal variability of simulated daily precipitation[J]. Journal of Climate, 2015,28(9):3264-3630
[17]	Woldemeskel F M, Sharma A, Sivakumar B , et al. Quantification of precipitation and temperature uncertainties simulated by CMIP3 and CMIP5 models[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 2016,121(1):3-17
[18]	Zheng X T, Hui C, Yeh S W . Response of ENSO amplitude to global warming in CESM large ensemble: uncertainty due to internal variability[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2018,50:1-17
[19]	Sun C, Liu L, Li L , et al. Uncertainties in simulated El Niño-Southern Oscillation arising from internal climate variability[J]. Atmospheric Science Letters, 2018,19:805
[20]	Hawkins E, Sutton R . The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2009,90(8):333-337
[21]	张莉, 丁一汇, 吴统文 , 等. CMIP5模式对21世纪全球和中国年平均地表气温变化和2℃升温阈值的预估[J]. 气象学报, 2013,71(6):1047-1060.
[21]	Zhang L, Ding Y H, Wu T W , et al. The 21st century annual mean surface air temperature change and the 2℃warming threshold over the globe and China as projected by the CMIP5 models[J]. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 2013,71(6):1047-1060 (in Chinese)
[22]	Chen X, Zhou T . Uncertainty in crossing time of 2℃warming threshold over China[J]. Science Bulletin, 2016 (18):1451-1459
[23]	Jiang D, Sui Y, Lang X . Timing and associated climate change of a 2℃ global warming[J]. International Journal of Climatology, 2016,36(14):4512-4522
[24]	周梦子, 周广胜, 吕晓敏 , 等. 基于CMIP5耦合气候模式的1.5℃和2℃升温阈值出现时间研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2018,14(3):221-227.
[24]	Zhou M Z, Zhou G S, Lyu X M , et al. CMIP5-based threshold-crossing times of 1.5℃ and 2℃ global warming above pre-industrial levels[J]. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2018,14(3):221-227 (in Chinese)
[25]	Wang X, Jiang D, Lang X . Climate change of 4℃ global warming above pre-industrial levels[J]. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 2018,35(7):757-770
[26]	Zhao L, Xu J, Powell A M , et al. Uncertainties of the global-to-regional temperature and precipitation simulations in CMIP5 models for past and future 100 years[J]. Theoretical & Applied Climatology, 2015,122(1-2):259-270
[27]	Kay J E, Deser C, Phillips A , et al. The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2015,96(8):1333-1349