Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 58
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Chou, Sin-Chan Marengo, José A. Silva, Adan J. Lyra, André A. Tavares, Priscila Souza, Celia Regina de Gouveia Harari, Joseph Nunes, Lucí H. Greco, Roberto Hosokawa, Eduardo K. Aragão, Luiz E. O. C. and Alves, Lincoln M. 2019. Climate Change in Santos Brazil: Projections, Impacts and Adaptation Options. p. 59.

    Bao, Shanhu Letu, Husi Zhao, Jun Shang, Huazhe Lei, Yonghui Duan, Anmin Chen, Bing Bao, Yuhai He, Jie Wang, Tianxing Ji, Dabin Tana, Gegen and Shi, Jiancheng 2019. Spatiotemporal distributions of cloud parameters and their response to meteorological factors over the Tibetan Plateau during 2003-2015 based on MODIS data. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 39, Issue. 1, p. 532.

    Phillips, Thomas J Bonfils, Céline J W and Zhang, Chengzhu 2019. Model consensus projections of US regional hydroclimates under greenhouse warming. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 014005.

    Zscheischler, Jakob Fischer, Erich M. and Lange, Stefan 2019. The effect of univariate bias adjustment on multivariate hazard estimates. Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 31.

    Rasoulzadeh Gharibdousti, Solmaz Kharel, Gehendra Miller, Ronald Linde, Evan and Stoecker, Art 2019. Projected Climate Could Increase Water Yield and Cotton Yield but Decrease Winter Wheat and Sorghum Yield in an Agricultural Watershed in Oklahoma. Water, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 105.

    Dias, Juliana Gehne, Maria Kiladis, George N. Sakaeda, Naoko Bechtold, Peter and Haiden, Thomas 2018. Equatorial Waves and the Skill of NCEP and ECMWF Numerical Weather Prediction Systems. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 146, Issue. 6, p. 1763.

    Watson, Phil 2018. How Well Do AR5 Sea Surface-Height Model Projections Match Observational Rates of Sea-Level Rise at the Regional Scale?. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 11.

    Zhang, Jingpeng and Zhao, Tianbao 2018. Historical and future changes of atmospheric precipitable water over China simulated by CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics,

    Formenti, Paola Piketh, Stuart John Namwoonde, Andreas Klopper, Danitza Burger, Roelof Cazaunau, Mathieu Feron, Anaïs Gaimoz, Cécile Broccardo, Stephen Walton, Nicola Desboeufs, Karine Siour, Guillaume Hanghome, Mattheus Mafwila, Samuel Omoregie, Edosa Junkermann, Wolfgang and Maenhaut, Willy 2018. Three years of measurements of light-absorbing aerosols over coastal Namibia: seasonality, origin, and transport. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue. 23, p. 17003.

    Frisch, Mathias 2018. Climate Modelling. p. 413.

    Zhang, Tao Zhang, Minghua Lin, Wuyin Lin, Yanluan Xue, Wei Yu, Haiyang He, Juanxiong Xin, Xiaoge Ma, Hsi-Yen Xie, Shaocheng and Zheng, Weimin 2018. Automatic tuning of the Community Atmospheric Model (CAM5) by using short-term hindcasts with an improved downhill simplex optimization method. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue. 12, p. 5189.

    Lazenby, Melissa J. Todd, Martin C. Chadwick, Robin and Wang, Yi 2018. Future Precipitation Projections over Central and Southern Africa and the Adjacent Indian Ocean: What Causes the Changes and the Uncertainty?. Journal of Climate, Vol. 31, Issue. 12, p. 4807.

    Amin, Ali Iqbal, Javed Asghar, Areesha and Ribbe, Lars 2018. Analysis of Current and Future Water Demands in the Upper Indus Basin under IPCC Climate and Socio-Economic Scenarios Using a Hydro-Economic WEAP Model. Water, Vol. 10, Issue. 5, p. 537.

    Sparrow, Sarah Millar, Richard J. Yamazaki, Kuniko Massey, Neil Povey, Adam C. Bowery, Andy Grainger, Roy G. Wallom, David and Allen, Myles 2018. Finding Ocean States That Are Consistent with Observations from a Perturbed Physics Parameter Ensemble. Journal of Climate, Vol. 31, Issue. 12, p. 4639.

    Lade, Steven J. Donges, Jonathan F. Fetzer, Ingo Anderies, John M. Beer, Christian Cornell, Sarah E. Gasser, Thomas Norberg, Jon Richardson, Katherine Rockström, Johan and Steffen, Will 2018. Analytically tractable climate–carbon cycle feedbacks under 21st century anthropogenic forcing. Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 507.

    Christiansen, Bo 2018. Ensemble Averaging and the Curse of Dimensionality. Journal of Climate, Vol. 31, Issue. 4, p. 1587.

    Burgess, Christopher Patrick Taylor, Michael A. Spencer, Nekeisha Jones, Jhordanne and Stephenson, Tannecia S. 2018. Estimating damages from climate-related natural disasters for the Caribbean at 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming above preindustrial levels. Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 18, Issue. 8, p. 2297.

    Roach, Lettie A. Tett, Simon F. B. Mineter, Michael J. Yamazaki, Kuniko and Rae, Cameron D. 2018. Automated parameter tuning applied to sea ice in a global climate model. Climate Dynamics, Vol. 50, Issue. 1-2, p. 51.

    Bloemendaal, Nadia Muis, Sanne Haarsma, Reindert J. Verlaan, Martin Irazoqui Apecechea, Maialen de Moel, Hans Ward, Philip J. and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H. 2018. Global modeling of tropical cyclone storm surges using high-resolution forecasts. Climate Dynamics,

    Kharel, Gehendra and Kirilenko, Andrei 2018. Comparing CMIP-3 and CMIP-5 climate projections on flooding estimation of Devils Lake of North Dakota, USA. PeerJ, Vol. 6, Issue. , p. e4711.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: June 2014

Chapter 9 - Evaluation of Climate Models

Summary

Executive Summary

Climate models have continued to be developed and improved since the AR4, and many models have been extended into Earth System models by including the representation of biogeochemical cycles important to climate change. These models allow for policy-relevant calculations such as the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compatible with a specified climate stabilization target. In addition, the range of climate variables and processes that have been evaluated has greatly expanded, and differences between models and observations are increasingly quantified using ‘performance metrics’. In this chapter, model evaluation covers simulation of the mean climate, of historical climate change, of variability on multiple time scales and of regional modes of variability. This evaluation is based on recent internationally coordinated model experiments, including simulations of historic and paleo climate, specialized experiments designed to provide insight into key climate processes and feedbacks and regional climate downscaling. Figure 9.44 provides an overview of model capabilities as assessed in this chapter, including improvements, or lack thereof, relative to models assessed in the AR4. The chapter concludes with an assessment of recent work connecting model performance to the detection and attribution of climate change as well as to future projections. {9.1.2, 9.8.1, Table 9.1, Figure 9.44}

The ability of climate models to simulate surface temperature has improved in many, though not all, important aspects relative to the generation of models assessed in the AR4.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis
  • Online ISBN: 9781107415324
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×