model
regional projections.
• Development of multiple 50-km regional
climate scenarios for use in impacts
assessments.
• Evaluation of regional model performance
over North America.
www.narccap.ucar.edu
50-km Grid
GFDL CGCM3 HADCM3 CCSM
MM5 X X1
RegCM X1** X
CRCM X1** X
HADRM X X1
RSM X1 X
WRF X X1
Red = run completed
Drawbacks of dynamical downscaling
• Requires postprocessing for bias
/media/ces/Lettenmaier_Dennis_CES_2010pdf.pdf
Figure 8. Stations ranked according to their average CC for the 20 highest rainfall daily events.
................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 9. Ranked values of the 50 highest 24-hour accumulated precipitation events plotted
against ranked values of the 50 highest daily precipitation
/media/vedurstofan-utgafa-2020/VI_2020_008.pdf
judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5
/media/loftslag/IPPC-2007-ar4_syr.pdf
) storage coefficient of interflow ki; (3) drainage
density d; (4) the fraction of surface runoff from snowmelt; and (5) the recession constant
krec for the decreasing saturated hydraulic conductivity with increasing depth. For the
groundwater flow, adjusted parameters (6–7) are the hydraulic conductivity in the X and Y
direction. The hydraulic conductivity is adjusted in distributed grids unlike
/media/ces/2010_017.pdf
6University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA. 7NOAA Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: cmilly@usgs.gov.
An uncertain future challenges water planners.
Published by AAAS
on July 12, 201
1
www.sciencemag.or
g
Downloaded from
1 FEBRUARY 2008 VOL 319 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org574
POLICYFORUM
combined with opera-
tions
/media/loftslag/Milly_etal-2008-Stationarity-dead-Science.pdf
changed throughout recent months as the caldera has been subsiding by more than 50 meters, accompanied by intense seismic activity. This might influence the seismicity pattern and allow for a high number of moderate earthquakes (M3-M5) even now, while larger events are getting fewer in number.
Nevertheless, a smooth and steady decrease of seismic activity on the caldera rim is obvious and consistent
/earthquakes-and-volcanism/articles/nr/3039
changes are expected to have a 50% probability of occurrence.
Figure 3.1. Best estimates of temperature change. The top row represents temperature changes for the
decade 2011-2020 in four three-month seasons (winter = December-January-February; spring =
March-April-May; summer = June-July-August; autumn = September-October-November). The
bottom row shows the best estimates of annual mean temperature
/media/ces/raisanen_ruosteenoja_CES_D2.2.pdf
st
c
o
ve
r
(%
)
8 x 8
y = -17.1Ln(x) + 67
R2 = 0.82
F
o
re
st
c
o
ve
r
(%
)
4 4
y = -4.2x + 65
R2 = 0.94
30
40
50
6
0 2 4 6
l ti it
F
o
re
st
c
o
ve
r
(%
)
2 2
Hypothetical aggregation error
by upscaling non-linear relationships
Observed from hypothetical exampleTheo etical under inning (Rastetter, 1992)
Spatial scale – Dominant cells
Conclusions - scale
• “Scale” has been on the (land use
/media/loftslag/Kok_1-scenarios-lecture-1.pdf
climate changes between the CMIP3 and ENSEMBLES
simulations 15
4. Impact of RCM data on forecasts of climate change 18
5. Probabilistic projections of temperature and precipitation change 24
5.1 Best estimates and uncertainty ranges of temperature and precipitation change 24
5.2 How probably will temperature increase (precipitation change) by at least X°C (Y%)?
28
6. Conclusions 34
References
/media/ces/D2.3_CES_Prob_fcsts_GCMs_and_RCMs.pdf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Annual, winter, and summer averages of air density at 50 and 100 mAGL . . . . . 21
5 Differences in average wind speed between WRF model data and measurements . . 23
6 Average wind power density based on original and corrected WRF model data . . . 25
7 Average wind speed at 50 and 100 mAGL based on corrected WRF model data . . 27
8 Average wind speed projected to 50 and 100 mASL
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2013/2013_001_Nawri_et_al.pdf