Search

Ninety-five percent of climate models contributing to phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) project early summer [October–December (OND)] rainfall declines over subtropical southern Africa by the end of the century, under all emissions forcing pathways. The intermodel consensus underlies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment that rainfall declines are "likely" and implies that significant climate change adaptation is needed. However, model consensus is not necessarily a good indicator of confidence, especially given that there is an order of magnitude difference in the scale of rainfall decline among models in OND (from <10 mm season−1 to ~100 mm season−1), and that the CMIP5 ensemble systematically overestimates present-day OND precipitation over subtropical southern Africa (in some models by a factor of 2). In this paper we investigate the uncertainty in the OND drying signal by evaluating the climate mechanisms that underlie the diversity in model rainfall projections. Models projecting the highest-magnitude drying simulate the largest increases in tropospheric stability over subtropical southern Africa associated with anomalous upper-level subsidence, reduced evaporation, and amplified surface temperature change. Intermodel differences in rainfall projections are in turn related to the large-scale adjustment of the tropical atmosphere to emissions forcing: models with the strongest relative warming of the northern tropical sea surface temperatures compared to the tropical mean warming simulate the largest rainfall declines. The models with extreme rainfall declines also tend to simulate large present-day biases in rainfall and in atmospheric stability, leading the authors to suggest that projections of high-magnitude drying require further critical attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to draw climate-related inferences from historical data makes understanding the biases and errors in these data critical. While climate data are collected at point-level monitoring sites, they are often postprocessed by averaging sites within a geographic area to align the data to a grid, easing analysis and visualization. Although this aggregation generally provides reasonable estimates of the mean, its use can be problematic for characterizing the full distribution of climate measures. Specifically, the process of averaging point-level data up to grid level can lead to inconsistencies, particularly when the grid box is heterogeneous and extremes are of interest. Point-level data are measured at individual points, while gridded data are the averaged product of many measurements within a larger spatial area. Because of this aggregation, point-level and grid-level distributions differ in many fundamental properties, such as their shape, skew, and tail behavior. This paper highlights these differences and their effects on analyses pertaining to current climatological questions. Mathematical relationships are derived to link the distributions of grid-level climate measures to the distributions of point-level climate measures using the notion of effective sample size. Then, these relationships are leveraged to propose a correction factor to use when modeling higher moments and extreme events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]