Selecting GCM Scenarios that Span the Range of Changes in a Multimodel Ensemble: Application to CMIP5 Climate Extremes Indices

Alex J. Cannon Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Search for other papers by Alex J. Cannon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Logistical constraints can limit the number of global climate model (GCM) simulations considered in a climate change impact assessment. When dealing with annual or seasonal variables, one can visualize and manually select GCM scenarios to cover as much of the ensemble’s range of changes as possible. Most environmental systems are sensitive to climate conditions (e.g., extremes) that cannot be described by a small number of variables. Instead, algorithms like k-means clustering have been used to select representative ensemble members. Clustering algorithms are, however, biased toward high-density regions of climate variable space and tend to select scenarios that describe the central tendency rather than the full spread of an ensemble. Also, scenarios selected via clustering may not be ordered: that is, scenarios in the five-cluster solution may not appear in the six-cluster solution, which makes recommending a consistent set of scenarios to researchers with different needs difficult. Alternatively, an automated procedure based on a cluster initialization algorithm is proposed and applied to changes in 27 climate extremes indices between 1986–2005 and 2081–2100 from a large ensemble of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations. Selections by the method are ordered and are designed to span the overall range of the ensemble. The number of scenarios required to account for changes spanned by at least 90% of the CMIP5 ensemble members is reported for 21 regions of the globe and compared with k-means clustering. On average, the proposed method requires 40% fewer scenarios to meet this threshold than k-means clustering does.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00636.s1.

Corresponding author address: Alex J. Cannon, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, University House 1, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria BC V8W 2Y2, Canada. E-mail: acannon@uvic.ca

Abstract

Logistical constraints can limit the number of global climate model (GCM) simulations considered in a climate change impact assessment. When dealing with annual or seasonal variables, one can visualize and manually select GCM scenarios to cover as much of the ensemble’s range of changes as possible. Most environmental systems are sensitive to climate conditions (e.g., extremes) that cannot be described by a small number of variables. Instead, algorithms like k-means clustering have been used to select representative ensemble members. Clustering algorithms are, however, biased toward high-density regions of climate variable space and tend to select scenarios that describe the central tendency rather than the full spread of an ensemble. Also, scenarios selected via clustering may not be ordered: that is, scenarios in the five-cluster solution may not appear in the six-cluster solution, which makes recommending a consistent set of scenarios to researchers with different needs difficult. Alternatively, an automated procedure based on a cluster initialization algorithm is proposed and applied to changes in 27 climate extremes indices between 1986–2005 and 2081–2100 from a large ensemble of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations. Selections by the method are ordered and are designed to span the overall range of the ensemble. The number of scenarios required to account for changes spanned by at least 90% of the CMIP5 ensemble members is reported for 21 regions of the globe and compared with k-means clustering. On average, the proposed method requires 40% fewer scenarios to meet this threshold than k-means clustering does.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00636.s1.

Corresponding author address: Alex J. Cannon, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, University House 1, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria BC V8W 2Y2, Canada. E-mail: acannon@uvic.ca

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (ZIP 2.55 KB)
Save
  • Cannon, A. J., P. H. Whitfield, and E. R. Lord, 2002: Synoptic map-pattern classification using recursive partitioning and principal component analysis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 11871206, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<1187:SMPCUR>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Evans, J. P., F. Ji, G. Abramowitz, and M. Ekström, 2013: Optimally choosing small ensemble members to produce robust climate simulations. Environ. Res. Lett.,8, 044050, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044050.

  • Giorgi, F., and R. Francisco, 2000: Uncertainties in regional climate change prediction: A regional analysis of ensemble simulations with the HADCM2 coupled AOGCM. Climate Dyn., 16, 169182, doi:10.1007/PL00013733.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hartigan, J. A., and M. A. Wong, 1979: Algorithm AS 136: A K-means clustering algorithm. Appl. Stat., 28,100108, doi:10.2307/2346830.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houle, D., A. Bouffard, L. Duchesne, T. Logan, and R. Harvey, 2012: Projections of future soil temperature and water content for three southern Quebec forested sites. J. Climate, 25, 76907701, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00440.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Katsavounidis, I., C.-C. J. Kuo, and Z. Zhang, 1994: A new initialization technique for generalized Lloyd iteration. IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 1, 144146, doi:10.1109/97.329844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knutti, R., D. Masson, and A. Gettelman, 2013: Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 11941199, doi:10.1002/grl.50256.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Logan, T., I. Charron, D. Chaumont, and D. Houle, 2011: Atlas of climate scenarios for Québec forests. Ouranos Tech. Rep., 124 pp [Available online at http://www.ouranos.ca/media/publication/230_AtlasForetEN2011.pdf.]

  • Masson, D., and R. Knutti, 2011: Climate model genealogy. Geophys. Res. Lett.,38, L08703, doi:10.1029/2011GL046864.

  • Mimmack, G. M., S. J. Mason, and J. S. Galpin, 2001: Choice of distance matrices in cluster analysis: Defining regions. J. Climate, 14, 27902797, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<2790:CODMIC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Molteni, F., R. Buizza, C. Marsigli, A. Montani, F. Nerozzi, and T. Paccagnella, 2001: A strategy for high-resolution ensemble prediction. I: Definition of representative members and global-model experiments. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 20692094, doi:10.1002/qj.49712757612.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Murdock, T., and D. Spittlehouse, 2011: Selecting and using climate change scenarios for British Columbia. University of Victoria Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium Rep., 49 pp. [Available online at http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/Murdock.ScenariosGuidance.Dec2011.pdf.]

  • Sherwood, S. C., S. Bony, and J.-L. Dufresne, 2014: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature, 505, 3742, doi:10.1038/nature12829.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sillmann, J., V. V. Kharin, X. Zhang, F. W. Zwiers, and D. Bronaugh, 2013a: Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 17161733, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sillmann, J., V. V. Kharin, F. W. Zwiers, X. Zhang, and D. Bronaugh, 2013b: Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 2. Future climate projections. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 24732493, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stocker, T. F., and Coauthors, Eds., 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, 1535 pp. [Available online at www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.]

  • Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485498, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Vuuren, D. P., and Coauthors, 2011: The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109, 531, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whitfield, P. H., and A. J. Cannon, 2000: Recent variations in climate and hydrology in Canada. Can. Water Resour. J., 25, 1965, doi:10.4296/cwrj2501019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whitfield, P. H., K. Bodtker, and A. J. Cannon, 2002: Recent variations in seasonality of temperature and precipitation in Canada, 1976–95. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 16171644, doi:10.1002/joc.813.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, X., L. Alexander, G. C. Hegerl, P. Jones, A. K. Tank, T. C. Peterson, B. Trewin, and F. W. Zwiers, 2011: Indices for monitoring changes in extremes based on daily temperature and precipitation data. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 2, 851870, doi:10.1002/wcc.147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 11501 4392 324
PDF Downloads 1865 315 46