| 9.3 Projections of Climate Change 
9.3.1 Global Mean Response 
   
    |  Figure 9.4: Intercomparison statistics for seasonal and annual (a) 
      temperature and (b) precipitation changes in nineteen CMIP2 experiments 
      at the doubling of CO2 (years 61 to 80). The total length of 
      the bars shows the mean squared amplitude of the simulated local temperature 
      and precipitation changes averaged over all experiments and over the whole 
      world. The lowermost part of each bar represents a nominally unbiased “common 
      signal”, the mid-part directly model-related variance and the top part 
      the inter-experiment variance attributed to internal variability. Precipitation 
      changes are defined as 100% x (PG-PCTRL) / Max(PCTRL, 
      0.25 mm/day), where the lower limit of 0.25 mm/day is used to reduce the 
      sensitivity of the global statistics to areas with very little control run 
      precipitation.
 |  Since the SAR, there have been a number of new AOGCM climate 
  simulations with various forcings that can provide estimates of possible future 
  climate change as discussed in Section 9.1.2. For the 
  first time we now have a reasonable number of climate simulations with different 
  forcings so we can begin to quantify a mean climate response along with a range 
  of possible outcomes. Here each model’s simulation of a future climate 
  state is treated as a possible outcome for future climate as discussed in the 
  previous section. These simulations fall into three categories (Table 
  9.1): 
  The first are integrations with idealised forcing, namely, a 1%/yr compound 
    increase of CO2. This 1% increase represents equivalent CO2, 
    which includes other greenhouse gases like methane, NOx etc. as 
    discussed in Section 9.2.1. These runs extend at 
    least to the time of effective CO2 doubling at year 70, and are 
    useful for direct model intercomparisons since they use exactly the same forcing 
    and thus are valuable to calibrate model response. These experiments are collected 
    in the CMIP exercise (Meehl et al., 2000a) and referred to as “CMIP2” 
    (Table 9.1). A second category of AOGCM climate model simulations uses specified time-evolving 
    future forcing where the simulations start sometime in the 19th century, and 
    are run with estimates of observed forcing through the 20th century (see Chapter 
    8). That state is subsequently used to begin simulations of the future 
    climate with estimated forcings of greenhouse gases (“G”) or with 
    the additional contribution from the direct effect of sulphate aerosols (“GS”) 
    according to various scenarios, such as IS92a (see Chapter 
    1). These simulations avoid the cold start problem (see SAR) present in 
    the CMIP experiments. They allow evaluation of the model climate and response 
    to forcing changes that could be experienced over the 21st century. The experiments 
    are collected in the IPCC-DDC. These experiments are assessed for the mid-21st 
    century when most of the DDC experiments with sulphate aerosols finished.A third category are AOGCM simulations using as an initial state the end 
    of the 20th century integrations, and then following the A2 and B2 (denoted 
    as such in Table 9.1) draft marker SRES forcing 
    scenarios to the year 2100 (see Section 9.1.2). These 
    simulations are assessed to quantify possible future climate change at the 
    end of the 21st century, and also are treated as members of an ensemble to 
    better assess and quantify consistent climate changes. A simple model is also 
    used to provide estimates of global temperature change for the end of the 
    21st century from a greater number of the SRES forcing scenarios. Table 9.1 gives a detailed overview of all experiments 
  assessed in this report. 9.3.1.1 1%/yr CO2 increase (CMIP2) experimentsFigure 9.3 shows the global average temperature 
  and precipitation changes for the nineteen CMIP2 simulations. At the time of 
  CO2 doubling at year 70, the 20-year average (years 61 to 80) global 
  mean temperature change (the transient climate response TCR; see Section 
  9.2) for these models is 1.1 to 3.1°C with an average of 1.8°C and 
  a standard deviation of 0.4°C (Figure 9.7). 
  This is similar to the SAR results (Figure 6.4 in Kattenberg et al., 1996). At the time of CO2 doubling at year 70, the 20-year average (years 
  61 to 80) percentage change of the global mean precipitation for these models 
  ranges from -0.2 to 5.6% with an average of 2.5% and a standard deviation of 
  1.5%. This is similar to the SAR results. For a hypothetical, infinite ensemble of experiments, in which Tm 
  and T'' are uncorrelated and both have zero means,   
   { T2} = Tf2 
    + {Tm2} + {T''2} = Tf2+  2M 
    +  2N. The ensemble mean square climate change is thus the sum of contributions from 
  the common forced component (Tf2), model differences ( 2M), 
  and internal variability (  2N 
  ). This framework is applied to the CMIP2 experiments in Figure 
  9.4. These components of the total change are estimated for each grid box 
  separately, using formulas that allow for unbiased estimates of these when a 
  limited number of experiments are available (Räisänen 2000, 2001). 
  The variance associated with internal variability  2N 
  is inferred from the temporal variability of detrended CO2 run minus 
  control run differences and the model-related variance  2M 
  as a residual. Averaging the local statistics over the world, the relative agreement 
  between the CMIP2 experiments is much higher for annual mean temperature changes 
  (common signal makes up 86% of the total squared amplitude) than for precipitation 
  (24%) (Figure 9.4). The relative agreement on seasonal climate changes is slightly lower, even 
  though the absolute magnitude of the common signal is in some cases larger in 
  the individual seasons than in the annual mean. Only 10 to 20% of the inter-experiment 
  variance in temperature changes is attributable to internal variability, which 
  indicates that most of this variance arises from differences between the models 
  themselves. The estimated contribution of internal variability to the inter-experiment 
  variance in precipitation changes is larger, from about a third in the annual 
  mean to about 50% in individual seasons. Thus there is more internal variability 
  and model differences and less common signal indicating lower reliability in 
  the changes of precipitation compared to temperature. |