4.7 Article

Contrasts between Urban and Rural Climate in CCSM4 CMIP5 Climate Change Scenarios

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1390-1412

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00098.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Office of Science (BER) of the U.S. Department of Energy
  3. National Science Foundation and other agencies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new parameterization of urban areas in the Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4) allows for simulation of temperature in cities where most of the global population lives. CCSM4 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations [Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5] are analyzed to examine how urban and rural areas might respond differently to changes in climate. The urban heat island (UHT), defined as the urban minus rural air temperature, is used as a metric. The average UHI at the end of the twenty-first century is similar to present day in RCP2.6 and RCP4.5, but decreases in RCP8.5. Both the daytime and nocturnal UHIs decrease in RCP8.5, but the decrease in the daytime UHI is larger and more uniform across regions and seasons than in the nocturnal UHI. This is caused by changes in evaporation that warm the rural surface more than the urban. There is significant spatial and seasonal variability in the response of the nocturnal UHI caused mainly by changes in the rural surface. In Europe, the response to climate change of rural leaf stem area in summer and clouds and rural soil moisture in winter explains the majority of this variability. Climate change increases the number of warm nights in urban areas substantially more than in rural areas. These results provide evidence that urban and rural areas respond differently to climate change. Thus, the unique aspects of the urban environment should be considered when making climate change projections, particularly since the global population is becoming increasingly urbanized.

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