4.7 Article

Identifying sensitive ranges in global warming precipitation change dependence on convective parameters

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 5841-5850

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069022

关键词

global warming hydrological cycle change; regional precipitation change; parameter sensitivity; uncertainty quantification; perturbed physics ensemble; deep convection parameterization

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [AGS-1102838/AGS-1540518]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-SC0006739]
  3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA14OAR4310274]
  4. NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory
  5. NSF
  6. Directorate For Geosciences
  7. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1540518] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0006739] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A branch-run perturbed-physics ensemble in the Community Earth System Model estimates impacts of parameters in the deep convection scheme on current hydroclimate and on end-of-century precipitation change projections under global warming. Regional precipitation change patterns prove highly sensitive to these parameters, especially in the tropics with local changes exceeding 3mm/d, comparable to the magnitude of the predicted change and to differences in global warming predictions among the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 models. This sensitivity is distributed nonlinearly across the feasible parameter range, notably in the low-entrainment range of the parameter for turbulent entrainment in the deep convection scheme. This suggests that a useful target for parameter sensitivity studies is to identify such disproportionately sensitive dangerous ranges. The low-entrainment range is used to illustrate the reduction in global warming regional precipitation sensitivity that could occur if this dangerous range can be excluded based on evidence from current climate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据