4.6 Article

Error characteristics of high resolution regional climate models over the Alpine area

Journal

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
Volume 37, Issue 1-2, Pages 377-390

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0848-5

Keywords

Regional climate model; High resolution; Multimodel evaluation; European Alps

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P19619]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P19619] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes typical error ranges of high resolution regional climate models operated over complex orography and investigates the scale-dependence of these error ranges. The results are valid primarily for the European Alpine region, but to some extent they can also be transferred to other orographically complex regions of the world. We investigate the model errors by evaluating a set of 62 one-year hindcast experiments for the year 1999 with four different regional climate models. The analysis is conducted for the parameters mean sea level pressure, air temperature (mean, minimum and maximum) and precipitation (mean, frequency and intensity), both as an area average over the whole modeled domain (the Greater Alpine Region, GAR) and in six subregions. The subregional seasonal error ranges, defined as the interval between the 2.5th percentile and the 97.5th percentile, lie between -3.2 and +2.0 K for temperature and between -2.0 and +3.1 mm/day (-45.7 and +94.7%) for precipitation, respectively. While the temperature error ranges are hardly broadened at smaller scales, the precipitation error ranges increase by 28%. These results demonstrate that high resolution RCMs are applicable in relatively small scale climate impact studies with a comparable quality as on well investigated larger scales as far as temperature is concerned. For precipitation, which is a much more demanding parameter, the quality is moderately degraded on smaller scales.

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