Present‐day interannual variability of surface climate in CMIP3 models and its relation to future warming
Abstract
Interannual variability (IAV) of 2m temperature (T), sea level pressure (SLP) and precipitation (P) in the CMIP3 20th century model simulations are compared with IAV in observational and reanalysis data sets using standard deviation based variability indices. Further, the relation between the representation of T IAV and the amplitude of future warming is investigated. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropics, T and SLP IAV are (in contrast to P) in general well represented although a few models perform much worse than others. General problem regions are: (1) sea ice boundary regions, where well‐known biases in the mean states exist; and (2) the Pacific Ocean and Central Africa where SLP IAV is consistently underestimated. T and SLP IAV discrepancies are often found in similar regions and are large in well‐known bias problem regions in the tropics and subtropics and high mountain regions. ‘Bad’ IAV representation also occurs in regions with small biases. T IAV is in general better reproduced over land than over sea and in the extratropics than in the tropics. Among the ‘good’ IAV models there is no robust relation between the tropics (sea only) and the extratropics (land only). The relation between the model's ability to correctly represent T IAV and projected temperature changes is slightly negative (more warming for better IAV representation) but except for the NH summer season not significant when the worst models in terms of IAV representation are omitted. This suggests that aggregated over large regions (with exception of NH summer) no robust relations are found between the model's ability to correctly represent T IAV and the projected temperature change. Copyright © 2010 Royal Meteorological Society
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some studies have found more consistent projections when poor models are eliminated.
“In fact, some studies have found more consistent projections when eliminating poor models (e.g., Walsh et al. 2008;Perkins and Pitman 2009;Scherrer 2010).”
From Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections (2010) · cites this paper as Scherrer 2010
Cites
The Changing Character of Precipitation
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M., & Parsons, D. B. (2003) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-84-9-1205 · Cited by 3,196 · see citing works
The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections
Tebaldi, C., & Knutti, R. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2076 · Cited by 1,862 · see citing works
Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections
Weigel, A. P., Knutti, R., Liniger, M. A., & Appenzeller, C. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2010jcli3594.1 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?
Reifen, C., & Toumi, R. (2009) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2009gl038082 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections
Weigel, A. P., Knutti, R., Liniger, M. A., & Appenzeller, C. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2010jcli3594.1 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scherrer, S. C.
- Affiliations
- Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Scherrer, Simon C.
- ORCID
- Scherrer, Simon C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Climatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-25
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1518-1529
- ISSN
- 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0088
- OpenAlex
- W2014145219
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Climatology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Office of Science
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Keywords
- interannual variability, CMIP3, climate model evaluation, 2 m air temperature, sea level pressure, precipitation, future warming, model bias, Pacific Ocean, Central Africa, Northern Hemisphere extratropics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review