4.6 Article

Can climate models represent the precipitation associated with extratropical cyclones?

Journal

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
Volume 47, Issue 3-4, Pages 679-695

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2863-z

Keywords

Precipitation; Extratropical cyclones; Climate models; HiGEM; Reanalysis; Remote sensing data

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council's project 'Testing and Evaluating Model Predictions of European Storms' (TEMPEST)
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [ncas10009] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extratropical cyclones produce the majority of precipitation in many regions of the extratropics. This study evaluates the ability of a climate model, HiGEM, to reproduce the precipitation associated with extratropical cyclones. The model is evaluated using the ERA-Interim reanalysis and GPCP dataset. The analysis employs a cyclone centred compositing technique, evaluates composites across a range of geographical areas and cyclone intensities and also investigates the ability of the model to reproduce the climatological distribution of cyclone associated precipitation across the Northern Hemisphere. Using this phenomena centred approach provides an ability to identify the processes which are responsible for climatological biases in the model. Composite precipitation intensities are found to be comparable when all cyclones across the Northern Hemisphere are included. When the cyclones are filtered by region or intensity, differences are found, in particular, HiGEM produces too much precipitation in its most intense cyclones relative to ERA-Interim and GPCP. Biases in the climatological distribution of cyclone associated precipitation are also found, with biases around the storm track regions associated with both the number of cyclones in HiGEM and also their average precipitation intensity. These results have implications for the reliability of future projections of extratropical precipitation from the model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available