Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Estimating the Uncertainty in a Regional Climate Model Related to Initial and Lateral Boundary Conditions

Wanli Wu Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Wanli Wu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Amanda H. Lynch Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Amanda H. Lynch in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Aaron Rivers Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Aaron Rivers in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Apr 2005
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3293.1
Page(s):
917–933
Restricted access

Abstract

There is a growing demand for regional-scale climate predictions and assessments. Quantifying the impacts of uncertainty in initial conditions and lateral boundary forcing data on regional model simulations can potentially add value to the usefulness of regional climate modeling. Results from a regional model depend on the realism of the driving data from either global model outputs or global analyses; therefore, any biases in the driving data will be carried through to the regional model. This study used four popular global analyses and achieved 16 driving datasets by using different interpolation procedures. The spread of the 16 datasets represents a possible range of driving data based on analyses to the regional model. This spread is smaller than typically associated with global climate model realizations of the Arctic climate. Three groups of 16 realizations were conducted using the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University–National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU–NCAR) Mesoscale Model (MM5) in an Arctic domain, varying both initial and lateral boundary conditions, varying lateral boundary forcing only, and varying initial conditions only. The response of monthly mean atmospheric states to the variations in initial and lateral driving data was investigated.

Uncertainty in the regional model is induced by the interaction between biases from different sources. Because of the nonlinearity of the problem, contributions from initial and lateral boundary conditions are not additive. For monthly mean atmospheric states, biases in lateral boundary conditions generally contribute more to the overall uncertainty than biases in the initial conditions. The impact of initial condition variations decreases with the simulation length while the impact of variations in lateral boundary forcing shows no clear trend. This suggests that the representativeness of the lateral boundary forcing plays a critical role in long-term regional climate modeling. The extent of impact of the driving data uncertainties on regional climate modeling is variable dependent. For some sensitive variables (e.g., precipitation, boundary layer height), even the interior of the model may be significantly affected.

* Current affiliation: Division of Climate and Global Dynamics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

+ Current affiliation: School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Corresponding author address: Dr. Wanli Wu, National Center for Atmospheric Research, CGD/ML420, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, CO 80305. Email: wanliwu@ucar.edu

Abstract

There is a growing demand for regional-scale climate predictions and assessments. Quantifying the impacts of uncertainty in initial conditions and lateral boundary forcing data on regional model simulations can potentially add value to the usefulness of regional climate modeling. Results from a regional model depend on the realism of the driving data from either global model outputs or global analyses; therefore, any biases in the driving data will be carried through to the regional model. This study used four popular global analyses and achieved 16 driving datasets by using different interpolation procedures. The spread of the 16 datasets represents a possible range of driving data based on analyses to the regional model. This spread is smaller than typically associated with global climate model realizations of the Arctic climate. Three groups of 16 realizations were conducted using the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University–National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU–NCAR) Mesoscale Model (MM5) in an Arctic domain, varying both initial and lateral boundary conditions, varying lateral boundary forcing only, and varying initial conditions only. The response of monthly mean atmospheric states to the variations in initial and lateral driving data was investigated.

Uncertainty in the regional model is induced by the interaction between biases from different sources. Because of the nonlinearity of the problem, contributions from initial and lateral boundary conditions are not additive. For monthly mean atmospheric states, biases in lateral boundary conditions generally contribute more to the overall uncertainty than biases in the initial conditions. The impact of initial condition variations decreases with the simulation length while the impact of variations in lateral boundary forcing shows no clear trend. This suggests that the representativeness of the lateral boundary forcing plays a critical role in long-term regional climate modeling. The extent of impact of the driving data uncertainties on regional climate modeling is variable dependent. For some sensitive variables (e.g., precipitation, boundary layer height), even the interior of the model may be significantly affected.

* Current affiliation: Division of Climate and Global Dynamics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

+ Current affiliation: School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Corresponding author address: Dr. Wanli Wu, National Center for Atmospheric Research, CGD/ML420, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, CO 80305. Email: wanliwu@ucar.edu

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Anthes, R. A., and T. W. Warner, 1978: Development of hydrodynamic models suitable for air pollution and other meso-meteorological studies. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106 , 1045–1078.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Azadi, M., U. C. Mohanty, O. P. Madan, and B. Padmanabhamurty, 2002: Prediction of precipitation associated with a western disturbance using a high-resolution regional model: Role of parameterization of physical processes. Meteor. Appl., 9 , 317–326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Briegleb, B. P., 1992: Delta-Eddington approximation for solar radiation in the NCAR Community Climate Model. J. Geophys. Res., 97 , 7603–7612.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Caya, D., and R. Laprise, 1999: A semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian regional climate model: The Canadian RCM. Mon. Wea. Rev., 127 , 341–362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chapman, W. L., and J. E. Walsh, 1993: Recent variations of sea ice and air temperature in high latitudes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 74 , 33–47.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001a: Coupling an advanced land surface–hydrology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129 , 569–585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001b: Coupling an advanced land surface–hydrology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part II: Preliminary model validation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129 , 587–604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Christensen, O. B., M. A. Gaertner, J. A. Prego, and J. Polcher, 2001: Internal variability of regional climate models. Climate Dyn., 17 , 875–887.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Curry, J. A., and A. H. Lynch, 2002: Comparing Arctic regional climate models. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 83 , 87.

  • Dai, A., G. A. Meehl, W. M. Washington, T. M. L. Wigley, and J. M. Arblaster, 2001: Ensemble simulation of twenty-first century climate changes: Business-as-usual versus CO2 stabilization. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82 , 2377–2388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Davies, H. C., 1976: A lateral boundary formulation for multi-level prediction models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 102 , 405–418.

  • Davies, H. C., 1983: Limitations of some common lateral boundary schemes used in regional NWP models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 111 , 1002–1012.

  • Errico, R. M., and D. Baumhefner, 1987: Predictability experiments using a high-resolution limited area model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 115 , 488–504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gibson, J. K., P. Kållberg, S. Uppala, A. Hernandez, A. Nomura, and E. Serrano, 1997: ERA description. ECMWF Re-Analysis Project Report Series 1, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 74 pp.

  • Giorgi, F., and X. Bi, 2000: A study of internal variability of a regional climate model. J. Geophys. Res., 105 , D24,. 29503–29521.

  • Grell, G., J. Dudhia, and D. Stauffer, 1994: A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-398+STR, 117 pp.

  • Grimit, E. P., and C. F. Mass, 2002: Initial results of a mesoscale short-range ensemble forecasting system over the Pacific Northwest. Wea. Forecasting, 17 , 192–205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Guo, Z., B. H. Bromwich, and J. J. Cassano, 2003: Evaluation of Polar MM5 simulations of Antarctic atmospheric circulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131 , 384–411.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hong, S., and H. Pan, 1996: Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124 , 2322–2339.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jacob, D., and R. Podzun, 1997: Sensitivity studies with the regional climate model REMO. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 63 , 119–129.

  • Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77 , 437–471.

  • Kanamitsu, M., 1989: Description of the NMC global data assimilation and forecast system. Wea. Forecasting, 4 , 334–342.

  • Legates, D. R., and C. J. Willmott, 1990: Mean seasonal and spatial variability global surface air temperature. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 41 , 11–21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leith, C. E., 1973: The standard error of time-average estimate of climate means. J. Appl. Meteor., 12 , 1066–1069.

  • Leung, L. R., L. O. Mearns, F. Giorgi, and R. L. Wilby, 2003: Regional climate research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84 , 89–95.

  • Liang, X-Z., K. E. Kunkel, and A. N. Samel, 2001: Development of a regional climate model for U.S. Midwest applications. Part I: Sensitivity to buffer zone treatment. J. Climate, 14 , 4363–4378.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Liston, G. E., and R. A. Pielke Sr., 2001: A climate version of the regional atmospheric modeling system. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 68 , 155–173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lynch, A. H., F. S. Chapin III, L. D. Hinzman, W. Wu, E. Lilly, G. Vourlitis, and E. Kim, 1999: Surface energy balance on the Arctic tundra: Measurements and models. J. Climate, 12 , 2585–2606.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lynch, A. H., E. N. Cassano, J. J. Cassano, and L. R. Lestak, 2003: Case studies of high wind events in Barrow, Alaska: Climatological context and development processes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131 , 719–732.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mass, C. F., and Y-H. Kuo, 1998: Regional real-time numerical weather prediction: Current status and future potential. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79 , 253–263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mlawer, E. J., S. Taubman, P. D. Brown, M. J. Iacono, and S. A. Clough, 1997: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J. Geophys. Res., 102 , 16663–16682.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Misra, V., and M. K. Yau, 2001: An ensemble strategy for high-resolution regional model forecasts. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 78 , 61–74.

  • Notaro, M., and W-C. Wang, 2002: Evaluation by the SUNYA ReCM of the impact of PNA on the winter climate of northeastern United States. Preprints, 13th Symp. on Global Change and Climate Variations, Orlando, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 4.2.

  • Oechel, W. C., G. L. Vourlitis, S. J. Hastings, and S. A. Bochkarev, 1995: Change in Arctic CO2 flux over the last two decades: Effects of climate change in Barrow, Alaska. Ecol. Appl., 5 , 846–855.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Palmer, T. N., 2002: The economic value of ensemble forecasts as a tool for risk assessment: From days to decades. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 128 , 747–774.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pielke, R. A., 2002: Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling. Academic Press, 676 pp.

  • Reisner, J. R., M. Rasmussen, and R. T. Bruintjes, 1998: Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter storms using the MM5 mesoscale model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 124 , 1071–1107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rinke, A., and K. Dethloff, 2000: On the sensitivity of a regional Arctic climate model to initial and boundary conditions. Climate Res., 14 , 101–113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rudolf, B., H. Hauschild, W. Rueth, and U. Schneider, 1994: Terrestrial precipitation analysis: Operational method and required density of point measurements. Global Precipitation and Climate Change, M. Desbois and F. Desalmand, Eds., NATO ASI Series, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, 173–186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sashegyi, K. D., and R. V. Madala, 1994: Initial conditions and boundary conditions. Mesoscale Modeling of the Atmosphere, R. A. Pielke and R. P. Pearce, Eds., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1–19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schaack, T. K., and J. R. Donald, 1994: January and July global distributions of atmospheric heating for 1986, 1987, and 1988. J. Climate, 7 , 1270–1285.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Serreze, M. C., and C. M. Hurst, 2000: Representation of mean arctic precipitation from NCEP–NCAR and ERA reanalyses. J. Climate, 13 , 182–201.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Serreze, M. C., and Coauthors, 2000: Observational evidence of recent change in the northern high-latitude environment. Climatic Change, 46 , 159–207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Serreze, M. C., M. P. Clark, and D. H. Bromwich, 2003: Monitoring precipitation over the Arctic terrestrial drainage: Data requirements, shortcomings, and applications of atmospheric reanalysis. J. Hydrometeor., 4 , 387–407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Seth, A., and F. Giorgi, 1998: The effects of domain choice on summer precipitation simulation and sensitivity in a regional climate model. J. Climate, 11 , 2698–2712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shukla, J., and D. S. Gutzler, 1983: Interannual variability and predictability of 500-mb geopotential heights over the Northern Hemisphere. Mon. Wea. Rev., 111 , 1273–1279.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Trenberth, K. E., and J. G. Olson, 1988: Evaluation of NMC global analyses: 1979–1987. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-299+STR, 82 pp.

  • Trenberth, K. E., and C. J. Guillemot, 1995: Evaluation of the global atmospheric moisture budget as seen from analyses. J. Climate, 8 , 2255–2272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Walsh, J. E., V. M. Kattsov, W. L. Chapman, V. Govorkova, and T. Pavlova, 2002: Comparison of Arctic climate simulations by uncoupled and coupled global models. J. Climate, 15 , 1429–1446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warner, T. T., R. A. Peterson, and R. E. Treadon, 1997: A tutorial on lateral boundary conditions as a basic and potentially serious limitation to regional numerical weather prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 2599–2617.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilby, R. L., and T. M. L. Wigley, 1997: Downscalling general circulation model output: A review of methods and limitations. Proc. Phys. Geogr., 21 , 530–548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Willmott, C. J., and S. M. Robeson, 1995: Climatologically aided interpolation (CAI) of terrestrial air temperature. Int. J. Climatol., 15 , 221–229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wu, W., and A. H. Lynch, 2000: Response of the seasonal carbon cycle in high latitudes to climate anomalies. J. Geophys. Res., 105 , 22879–22908.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zhong, S., and J. Fast, 2003: An evaluation of the MM5, RAMS, and Meso-Eta models at subkilometer resolution using VTMX field campaign data in the Salt Lake Valley. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131 , 1301–1322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zwiers, F. W., 1996: Interannual variability and predictability in an ensemble of AMIP climate simulations conducted with the CCC GCM2. Climate Dyn., 12 , 825–847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zwiers, F. W., X. L. Wang, and J. Sheng, 2000: Effects of specifying bottom boundary conditions in an ensemble of atmospheric GCM simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 105 , 7295–7315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1204 587 45
PDF Downloads 474 164 3