Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A view from France
Philippe DandinMétéo-France
On behalf of the PR to WMO, François Jacq, Météo-France CEO& with valuable inputs from my colleagues from the research side
WCRP JSC, Antalya, Feb. 2010
Climat
Climate research
French groups involved in WCRP activities
CERFACS… IPSL (LMD, LSCE, LOCEAN…)… Météo-France CNRM…– Paris Bureau… Workshop Lille June 2010…– Two French climate models (CNRM & IPSL) in CMIP5 & CORDEX
Projects… – AMMA (Redelsberger, Lafore, Hourdin-AMMA-MIP), Concordiasi (Rabier)… – Thorpex, Mediterranean area: Hymex…– WGCM (Bony), ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) cross-cut (Le Treut…)… – Obs simulation (CFMIP Obs Simulator Package)
(Calipso, EarthCare & "needs" tbd) (Chepfer, Bony, Planton…)
Model Intercomparison Projects coordinations:– Paleoclimate PMIP (Braconnot)– Coupled Climate Carbon Cycle C4MIP (Friedlingstein) – Cloud Feedback CFMIP (Bony)
Seasonal forecasting, Decadal prediction (Cassou, Céron)
AMMA: African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis
Better understand the mechanisms of the African monsoon and prevent dramatic situations (Redelsperger et al, 2006)
Enhanced observations over West Africa 2006 (esp. Radiosonde network) Sustainability of the network remains challenging
AMMA: From the AMMA database AMMABC: AMMA + bias correction
PreAMMA: With a 2005 network NOAMMA: No Radiosonde data
Higher scores for AMMABC
Lowest scores for NO AMMA
F. Rabier (Météo-France, CNRM)
Assimilation of AMSU-B Ch2 (150 GHz) & Ch 5 (183±7 GHz) over land, 45 daysAssimilation of AMSU-B Ch2 (150 GHz) & Ch 5 (183±7 GHz) over land, 45 days
TCWV (EXP) - TCWV (CTL)
TCWV (CTL)
Karbou et al, 2009
Assimilation of humidity obs. over land
F. Rabier (Météo-France, CNRM)
Concordiasi. High-lat. assimilation of IR sensors
Assimilation of IASI & AIRS over polar areas (sea ice and land)
IASI channels 167 (100hPa)Black dots: pixels assimilated in operations Color dots (Tb): Assimilation of IASI over land &
sea ice for high peaking channels
Blue: Positive impact of additional data
Comparison of RMSE for forecasts at 48h & 72h Error (exp. with additional data AMSUA/B, AIRS, IASI) – Error (Control)
48h
50°S 80°S 50°S 80°S
72h
1000
500
100
Surface SURFEX
CNRM-CM5 for IPCC AR5
AtmosphereARPEGE-Climat
T127L, L31
OceanNEMO 1°, L42
24h
Run offTRIP
24h
24hSea ice
GHG
24hOASIS
Ozone chem.
The ozone hole in October in Antarctica(1990-1999 – 1950-1959)
Positive feedback: Ozone depletion & local coolingImpact on the atmospherical dynamics (acceleration of the vortex)
Interactive ozone in climate simulations
Feedback to WCRP
1. The French climate groups are actively taking part to WCRP actions, e.g.– CERFACS on decadal prediction (seasonal forecast system extension)– IPSL is in most of the WCRP groups: ACC, paleo, cloud physics, satellite observations…– Météo-France mainly in WGNE activities: Models performance & improvement, optimal
use of all types of observations (real time & reanalysis)
2. WCRP has a rich vision (challenges), many active groups. A rich structure too. – Keep it simple & focused (& as readable as the climate system can permit it…)
3. WGCM & WGNE co-ordinate MIPs & stimulate science– WCRP is enlarging the scope of such works (idealized & operational cases).– It’s another load for modelling groups, & a balance has to be found.
4. Météo-France – Supports the seamless approach, uses common models both for operations & research,
real time & climate,– Recalls that high quality reanalysis are extremely important for climate research, and
recommends that a strong support is given to ECMWF efforts, again and again.
Climate services
My challenges (a CCl-like view?)
1. WCRP & CCl to work closer, and fertilize each other • Transition from descriptive climatology to climate dynamics• Variabilities, anthropogenic change… uncertainties…skills… data quality… traceability…• Especially because of the GFCS – but not only, CCl/NMS as an intermediate user/relay
2. A need for a 2-way interaction & mutual support between research & operations.• Transfert from science to operations & (wise) use of science is a key challenge • Climatology as a provider for research, more than ever critical
3. Observation requirements and delivery (GCOS, CCl) • Rationale for the observation of the climate & needs of the climate research community (metrics, norms,
quality… sustainability, budgets…). Density needed for a 0.10°C/century? Satellite vs in situ?• Future needs to be monitored now… IPCC Chapt.7 Clouds & aerosols? Hydrological cycle? Needs?• Few other items e.g supporting Data Rescue and other “orphan” efforts
4. Properly using the rich but sophisticated available information • How to use model/MME outputs? How to deal with uncertainties? To properly downscale? To renew the
old toolbox & knowledge?• Developing the skills of the “intermediate” users, that have to provide elements describing the current
and future states of the climate (homogeneization, uncertainties, decision making…) • Building the Climate Services, combining science expertise & servicing + delivering products the way
users are used to.
Let’s refurbish climatology: The "old" (vital) way…
• Climate watch & analysis. Speaking about climate requires speaking about the current climate.• Climate & weather. A link to users & all day life. Train the forecasters!
Ex. The current cold wave1. What kind of event is it? (it’s winter!) – variability? Change? 2. Try to explain. How? Why? When? When again?
Give a reference! An explanation?
What about the next (or the no show of) heat wave, snow, drought, wind, storm, cyclone…
From description to dynamics & seasonal forecasting
Variability modes & circulation patterns are sometimes captured by climate models (used for seasonal forecasting). Sometimes the forecast miss the target, sometimes they don’t…
C. Cassou (CNRS-Cerfacs), 2008, Nature.
Seasonal forecasting as the first step to adaptation. And the link with the weather forecast and users.
See Céron & Bessemoulin (joint tech conf)
What are Climate Services!? Our questions…
• The spectrum of needs is broad. Can we deliver products? Can we answer? We have to.• Return period for T in 2050? Review of dimensioning norms? Should I take a decision now or wait
for a decade of progress of climate sciences? • Explain all that stuff? Is it true? Is it worth? Tell me about these scenarios?! No error bar please.
• Science has to be there, including “other sciences” too. Is it feasible, sustainable?• The complexity needs a systemic approach. Minimalism is currently offered…• Transition from science to services (& to court) requires more than just producing.
• Users seek guidance in chaos & under pressure• Need for educating, training & transfer (should have learned about weather dependency first…)• A transition for capacities in our agencies (and let the DNA evolve!).
• But entering into services is also a lot of trouble (having customers can be a nightmare) • Services? Operations? It’s when the phone rings, and the speaker shouts at you! • What can the operational partner offer to research to ease life?
• Climate services can be partly set up in the lee of the traditional climatological ones • This is a straightforward way to meet the users (engineering) requirements• The formats, tools, contents, ways of delivering & servicing are known• A simple start, a bridge between the past & future
DRIAS: A facility for servicing climate products
DRIAS: French Regional Climate data & products for Impact & Adaptation of our Society & Env. Météo-France + Climate labs (CERFACS, IPSL, CNRM)
Aims: Give access to future climate info with expertise & guidance (help the user!)– Several GES, regional models, downscaling methods– Standard formats & products– Easy access (the way users are used to)
Challenge: Reasonable industrialization of currently tailored made services– A web based delivery system (already used for delivering climatological & met products)– A benefit for the climate groups too (heavily loaded, from IPCC to… services)
