1 / 12

US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report

US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report. Co-Chairs: Lisa Goddard -- IRI, The Earth Institute of Columbia University Amy Solomon -- CIRES/University of Colorado & NOAA/ESRL Arun Kumar -- NOAA/Climate Prediction Center. US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group.

bowen
Download Presentation

US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report Co-Chairs: Lisa Goddard -- IRI, The Earth Institute of Columbia University Amy Solomon -- CIRES/University of Colorado & NOAA/ESRL Arun Kumar -- NOAA/Climate Prediction Center US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  2. US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Formally approved January 2009 Objective 1:To define a framework to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenically forced variability on decadal time scales for the purpose of assessing predictability of decadal-scale climate variations. Objective 2:Work towards better understanding of decadal variability and predictability through metrics that can be used as a strategy to assess and validate decadal climate prediction simulations. US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  3. Membership US Membership: Jim Carton (University of Maryland) Tom Delworth (NOAA/GFDL) Clara Deser (NCAR) Ichiro Fukumori (JPL/NASA) Lisa Goddard (IRI/Columbia University) Ben Kirtman (University of Miami) Arun Kumar (NOAA/CPC) Yochanan Kushnir (Columbia University) Matt Newman (CIRES/NOAA) Amy Solomon (CIRES/NOAA) Dan Vimont (University of Wisconsin) Ex-officio Members: Arthur Greene (IRI/Columbia University) Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh) Jerry Meehl - representing WGCM (NCAR) Doug Smith (UK Met Office) Tim Stockdale - representing WGSIP (ECMWF) US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  4. Scientific Focus of Telecons 1: How best to separate natural decadal variability from anthropogenically forced decadal variations? (Kushnir 2009) US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  5. Scientific Focus of Telecons 2: How do we address the issue of potential projection and interaction between the natural and forced variability? The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific was likely a combination of internally generated decadal variability and a forced response (Meehl, Hu, and Santer, 2009: The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability, J. Climate, 22, 780--792.) Inherent and forced (~25% each) Forced response (~25%) Inherent decadal (~50%) US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  6. Timeline • June 2009: 1st Group Meeting and Session on “Advances in Decadal Climate Prediction” at the CCSM Workshop in Breckenridge, CO. • Fall 2009: Submit white paper on “What additional skill we can expect from the initialized decadal predictions, and why?” • Winter 2009/10: Group Meeting? (RSMAS Wrkshp) • Spring 2010(?): Announcement of Opportunity by funding agencies for small grants to investigate decadal predictability in the AR5 initialized decadal climate projections • Fall 2010: Group Meeting? (WGOMD Mtg) • Spring 2011: Meeting on “Defining Metrics Relevant to Dynamical Decadal Predictions” • Summer 2011: Write workshop report and WG wrap-up focused on decadal prediction metrics US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  7. Coordination with other Working Groups US CLIVAR AMOC Science Teamwould like… • Input on separation of forced and natural components for AMOC • Metrics for evaluating the AMOC in model simulations CLIVAR Working Group on Ocean Model Development • DPWG invited to participate in next WG meeting in October 2010, along with AMOC Team NCAR Climate Change & Climate Variability WGs • Running additional experiments at request of DPWG US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  8. Coordination with other Working Groups (continued) NCAR Climate Change and Climate Variability Working Groups • Twin perfect model experiments that can be used as a testbed for the DPWG metrics study Time series of CO2 concentrations (ppm) for scenarios B1, A1B, and A2, twentieth-century stabilization from 2000 to 2100, twenty-first century stabilization from 2100 to 2300 for B1 and A1B; (b) time series of globally averaged surface air temperature anomalies (°C), 2000–2300, for the various experiments (from Meehl et al. 2006, JC). * CCSM3* 40 member ensembles* 60-year integrations Twin #1 : A1B Scenario (runs done)Twin #2 : Year 2000 Stabilization US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  9. Involvement in Workshops The Eighth Workshop on Decadal Climate Variability Decadal Climate Predictability and Prediction: Where Are We? 12-15 October, 2009; St. Michaels, Maryland Organizing committee:Lisa Goddard (IRI), Arun Kumar (NOAA-CPC), Mojib Latif (IFM-GEOMAR), Tong Lee (NASA-JPL), Jerry Meehl (NCAR), Vikram Mehta (CRCES), Tony Rosati (GFDL), Jeff Knight (Hadley Centre), and Detlef Stammer (Univ. of Hamburg) Predicting the climate of the coming decades January 11-15, 2010; RSMAS, Miami, FL Workshop goal: The goal of this workshop is to bring together people from different communities who have shared interests in predicting the climate of the coming decades. Key elements: Socioeconomic considerations, Mechanisms of decadal variability, Decadal predictions & forced climate change, Applications, Long-term risk management, Marine ecosystems, Water resources, Public lands, Coastal Management, Airports, Metropolitan planning organizations US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  10. White Paper in Preparation • Focus: • Summarize and critique methodologies to distinguish natural decadal variations from anthropogenically-forced variations in order to assess the potential contribution of initialization for decadal predictions. • Questions addressed: • Can we estimate the relative amplitude, and spatial structure, of natural and forced decadal variability? What approaches can be used to separate natural decadal variability from anthropogenically forced decadal variations? How does the analysis depend on the chosen method? • How does forced variability interact with the natural variability? • What robust estimates of observed trends and/or decadal variations exist to validate the models? • …To be submitted to BAMS September 2009 US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  11. Assembling Databases for Metrics Study CMIP3 Database Twin perfect model experiments with CCSM 40-member ensembles Smith et al data (initialized HadCM3 expt.s) Ben Kirtman’s CCSM simulations Anticipating CMIP5 Decadal Prediction Expt.s What else? US CLIVAR Summit 2009

  12. Planning for Broad Community Participation in Analysis of Decadal Prediction Experiments • CMEP (2004): Coupled Model Evaluation Project • 19 Funded Proposals (+ 2 lab funded) • 18 Papers published (at least) • DRICOMP (2007): DRought In COupled Models Project • 16 Funded Proposals • Papers to Journal of Climate special issue on drought (together with results from US CLIVAR Drought WG) • DECPREP (2010): DECadal PREdictability Project US CLIVAR Summit 2009

More Related