Upload
ami-joseph
View
225
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report
US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group Report
Co-Chairs:Lisa Goddard -- IRI, The Earth Institute of Columbia University Amy Solomon -- CIRES/University of Colorado & NOAA/ESRLArun Kumar -- NOAA/Climate Prediction Center
Co-Chairs:Lisa Goddard -- IRI, The Earth Institute of Columbia University Amy Solomon -- CIRES/University of Colorado & NOAA/ESRLArun Kumar -- NOAA/Climate Prediction Center
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group
US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group
Formally approved January 2009
Objective 1: To define a framework to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenically forced variability on decadal time scales for the purpose of assessing predictability of decadal-scale climate variations.
Objective 2: Work towards better understanding of decadal variability and predictability through metrics that can be used as a strategy to assess and validate
decadal climate prediction simulations.
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
MembershipMembership
US Membership:Jim Carton (University of Maryland) Tom Delworth (NOAA/GFDL)Clara Deser (NCAR)Ichiro Fukumori (JPL/NASA)Lisa Goddard (IRI/Columbia University)Ben Kirtman (University of Miami)Arun Kumar (NOAA/CPC)Yochanan Kushnir (Columbia University)Matt Newman (CIRES/NOAA)Amy Solomon (CIRES/NOAA)Dan Vimont (University of Wisconsin)
Ex-officio Members:Arthur Greene (IRI/Columbia University)Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh)Jerry Meehl - representing WGCM (NCAR)Doug Smith (UK Met Office)Tim Stockdale - representing WGSIP (ECMWF)
US Membership:Jim Carton (University of Maryland) Tom Delworth (NOAA/GFDL)Clara Deser (NCAR)Ichiro Fukumori (JPL/NASA)Lisa Goddard (IRI/Columbia University)Ben Kirtman (University of Miami)Arun Kumar (NOAA/CPC)Yochanan Kushnir (Columbia University)Matt Newman (CIRES/NOAA)Amy Solomon (CIRES/NOAA)Dan Vimont (University of Wisconsin)
Ex-officio Members:Arthur Greene (IRI/Columbia University)Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh)Jerry Meehl - representing WGCM (NCAR)Doug Smith (UK Met Office)Tim Stockdale - representing WGSIP (ECMWF)
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Scientific Focus of Telecons Scientific Focus of Telecons 1: How best to separate natural decadal variability
from anthropogenically forced decadal variations? 1: How best to separate natural decadal variability
from anthropogenically forced decadal variations?
(Kushnir 2009)
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Scientific Focus of Telecons Scientific Focus of Telecons 2: How do we address the issue of potential projection and
interaction between the natural and forced variability?2: How do we address the issue of potential projection and
interaction between the natural and forced variability?
The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific was likely a combination of internally generated decadal variability and a forced response
Forced response (~25%)
Inherent decadal (~50%)
Inherent and forced (~25% each)
(Meehl, Hu, and Santer, 2009: The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability, J. Climate, 22, 780--792.)
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
TimelineTimeline June 2009: 1st Group Meeting and Session on “Advances
in Decadal Climate Prediction” at the CCSM Workshop in Breckenridge, CO.
• Fall 2009: Submit white paper on “What additional skill we can expect from the initialized decadal predictions, and why?”
• Winter 2009/10: Group Meeting? (RSMAS Wrkshp)
• Spring 2010(?): Announcement of Opportunity by funding agencies for small grants to investigate decadal predictability in the AR5 initialized decadal climate projections
• Fall 2010: Group Meeting? (WGOMD Mtg)
• Spring 2011: Meeting on “Defining Metrics Relevant to Dynamical Decadal Predictions”
• Summer 2011: Write workshop report and WG wrap-up focused on decadal prediction metrics
June 2009: 1st Group Meeting and Session on “Advances in Decadal Climate Prediction” at the CCSM Workshop in Breckenridge, CO.
• Fall 2009: Submit white paper on “What additional skill we can expect from the initialized decadal predictions, and why?”
• Winter 2009/10: Group Meeting? (RSMAS Wrkshp)
• Spring 2010(?): Announcement of Opportunity by funding agencies for small grants to investigate decadal predictability in the AR5 initialized decadal climate projections
• Fall 2010: Group Meeting? (WGOMD Mtg)
• Spring 2011: Meeting on “Defining Metrics Relevant to Dynamical Decadal Predictions”
• Summer 2011: Write workshop report and WG wrap-up focused on decadal prediction metrics
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Coordination with other Working GroupsCoordination with other Working Groups
US CLIVAR AMOC Science Team would like… Input on separation of forced and natural
components for AMOC Metrics for evaluating the AMOC in model
simulations
CLIVAR Working Group on Ocean Model Development
DPWG invited to participate in next WG meeting in October 2010, along with AMOC Team
NCAR Climate Change & Climate Variability WGs Running additional experiments at request of DPWG
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Coordination with other Working Groups (continued)Coordination with other Working Groups (continued)
NCAR Climate Change and Climate Variability Working Groups
Twin perfect model experiments that can be used as a testbed for the DPWG metrics study
Twin perfect model experiments that can be used as a testbed for the DPWG metrics study
Time series of CO2 concentrations (ppm) for scenarios B1, A1B, and A2, twentieth-century stabilization from 2000 to 2100, twenty-first century stabilization from 2100 to 2300 for B1 and A1B; (b) time series of globally averaged surface airtemperature anomalies (°C), 2000–2300, for the various experiments (from Meehl et al. 2006, JC).
* CCSM3* 40 member ensembles* 60-year integrations
Twin #1 : A1B Scenario (runs done)Twin #2 : Year 2000 Stabilization
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Involvement in WorkshopsInvolvement in Workshops
The Eighth Workshop on Decadal Climate Variability Decadal Climate Predictability and Prediction: Where Are
We?12-15 October, 2009; St. Michaels, Maryland
Organizing committee: Lisa GoddardLisa Goddard (IRI), Arun KumarArun Kumar (NOAA-CPC), Mojib Latif (IFM-GEOMAR), Tong Lee (NASA-JPL), Jerry MeehlJerry Meehl (NCAR), Vikram Mehta (CRCES), Tony Rosati
(GFDL), Jeff Knight (Hadley Centre), and Detlef Stammer (Univ. of Hamburg)
The Eighth Workshop on Decadal Climate Variability Decadal Climate Predictability and Prediction: Where Are
We?12-15 October, 2009; St. Michaels, Maryland
Organizing committee: Lisa GoddardLisa Goddard (IRI), Arun KumarArun Kumar (NOAA-CPC), Mojib Latif (IFM-GEOMAR), Tong Lee (NASA-JPL), Jerry MeehlJerry Meehl (NCAR), Vikram Mehta (CRCES), Tony Rosati
(GFDL), Jeff Knight (Hadley Centre), and Detlef Stammer (Univ. of Hamburg)
Predicting the climate of the coming decades January 11-15, 2010; RSMAS, Miami, FL
Workshop goal: The goal of this workshop is to bring together people from different communities who have shared interests in predicting the climate of the coming decades. Key elements: Socioeconomic considerations, Mechanisms of decadal variability, Decadal predictions & forced climate change, Applications, Long-term risk management, Marine ecosystems, Water resources, Public lands, Coastal Management, Airports, Metropolitan planning organizations
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
White Paper in Preparation White Paper in Preparation Focus:Summarize and critique methodologies to distinguish natural decadal variations from anthropogenically-forced variations in order to assess the potential contribution of initialization for decadal predictions.
Questions addressed: Can we estimate the relative amplitude, and spatial structure, of natural and forced decadal variability? What approaches can be used to separate natural decadal variability from anthropogenically forced decadal variations? How does the analysis depend on the chosen method? How does forced variability interact with the natural variability? What robust estimates of observed trends and/or decadal variations exist to validate the models?
…To be submitted to BAMS September 2009
Focus:Summarize and critique methodologies to distinguish natural decadal variations from anthropogenically-forced variations in order to assess the potential contribution of initialization for decadal predictions.
Questions addressed: Can we estimate the relative amplitude, and spatial structure, of natural and forced decadal variability? What approaches can be used to separate natural decadal variability from anthropogenically forced decadal variations? How does the analysis depend on the chosen method? How does forced variability interact with the natural variability? What robust estimates of observed trends and/or decadal variations exist to validate the models?
…To be submitted to BAMS September 2009
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Assembling Databases for Metrics Study
Assembling Databases for Metrics Study
1)CMIP3 Database
2)Twin perfect model experiments with
CCSM 40-member ensembles
3)Smith et al data (initialized HadCM3
expt.s)
4)Ben Kirtman’s CCSM simulations
5)Anticipating CMIP5 Decadal Prediction
Expt.s
6)What else?
US CLIVAR Summit 2009
Planning for Broad Community Participation in Analysis of Decadal
Prediction Experiments
Planning for Broad Community Participation in Analysis of Decadal
Prediction Experiments
CMEP (2004): Coupled Model Evaluation Project 19 Funded Proposals (+ 2 lab funded) 18 Papers published (at least)
DRICOMP (2007): DRought In COupled Models Project 16 Funded Proposals Papers to Journal of Climate special issue on
drought (together with results from US CLIVAR Drought WG)
DECPREP (2010): DECadal PREdictability Project
CMEP (2004): Coupled Model Evaluation Project 19 Funded Proposals (+ 2 lab funded) 18 Papers published (at least)
DRICOMP (2007): DRought In COupled Models Project 16 Funded Proposals Papers to Journal of Climate special issue on
drought (together with results from US CLIVAR Drought WG)
DECPREP (2010): DECadal PREdictability Project