4.8 Article

Tales of future weather

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 107-113

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2450

关键词

-

资金

  1. Knowledge for Climate Theme 6 project
  2. NWO/KvK project Bridging the Gap between stakeholders and climate scientists [NWO 830.10.008]
  3. LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
  4. ESRC's Centre for Climate Change and Economics and Policy - ESRC
  5. Munich Re
  6. UK EPSRC [EP/K013661/1]
  7. EPSRC [EP/K013661/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. ESRC [ES/K006576/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. NERC [NE/H003479/1, NE/M008304/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K006576/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K013661/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  12. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H003479/1, NER/J/S/2002/00737, NE/M008304/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Society is vulnerable to extreme weather events and, by extension, to human impacts on future events. As climate changes weather patterns will change. The search is on for more effective methodologies to aid decision-makers both in mitigation to avoid climate change and in adaptation to changes. The traditional approach uses ensembles of climate model simulations, statistical bias correction, downscaling to the spatial and temporal scales relevant to decision-makers, and then translation into quantities of interest. The veracity of this approach cannot be tested, and it faces in-principle challenges. Alternatively, numerical weather prediction models in a hypothetical climate setting can provide tailored narratives of high-resolution simulations of high-impact weather in a future climate. This 'tales of future weather' approach will aid in the interpretation of lower-resolution simulations. Arguably, it potentially provides complementary, more realistic and more physically consistent pictures of what future weather might look like.

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

4.8
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