4.6 Article

Assessing the effect of domain size over the Caribbean region using the PRECIS regional climate model

期刊

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
卷 44, 期 7-8, 页码 1901-1918

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2272-8

关键词

RCM evaluation; Domain size assessment; Caribbean-Central America; Regional climate; CORDEX

资金

  1. Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (Belize)
  2. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Research Program of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA) of Cuba
  3. Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) project CARIWIG
  4. 'The Future of Climate Extremes in the Caribbean' (XCUBE)
  5. Direktoratet for samfunnssikkerhet og beredskap (DSB)
  6. GoLoCarSce project under the ACP-EU Science and Technology Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the sensitivity of the one-way nested PRECIS regional climate model (RCM) to domain size for the Caribbean region. Simulated regional rainfall patterns from experiments using three domains with horizontal resolution of 50 km are compared with ERA reanalysis and observed datasets to determine if there is an optimal RCM configuration with respect to domain size and the ability to reproduce important observed climate features in the Caribbean. Results are presented for the early wet season (May-July) and late wet season (August-October). There is a relative insensitivity to domain size for simulating some important features of the regional circulation and key rainfall characteristics e.g. the Caribbean low level jet and the mid summer drought (MSD). The downscaled precipitation has a systematically negative precipitation bias, even when the domain was extended to the African coast to better represent circulation associated with easterly waves and tropical cyclones. The implications for optimizing modelling efforts within resource-limited regions like the Caribbean are discussed especially in the context of the region's participation in global initiatives such as CORDEX.

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

4.6
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