Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
modelling centres. Seamless model development improves confidence in predictions across
all timescales and enables separation of local versus remote influences. Idealised modelling
studies are also useful for understanding hydrological cycle processes. As models become
increasing complex, it is essential that the interactions between model processes and their
systematic errors are understood and, where necessary, reduced, in order to facilitate
increase confidence in, and better interpretation of, model projections.
We have highlighted issues in understanding and modelling processes within all of the
components of the hydrological cycle, including atmosphere, land surface, ocean and
cryosphere, and in the interactions between them. Although there is a large amount of
research effort currently being expended in these different areas, there is a need for more
coordinated collaborative activity in order that all may benefit. Studies of phenomena such
as monsoons bring together several of these areas, as well as encompassing a wide range of
timescales.
Multi-model studies such as CMIP5 permit evaluation and quantification of uncertainty
in the response of the global water cycle to climate change. Systematic evaluation of the
sensitivity of climate change projections in CMIP5 models to particular physical para-
metrisations (e.g., convection), processes (e.g., Earth system) and resolution (horizontal
and vertical), along with the use of idealised climate change scenarios, will provide better
understanding of how and why the hydrological cycle may change, and better estimation of
uncertainty in model projections of changes in the global water cycle.
Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution to this overview from members
of the Improving Hydrological Predictions Working Group, which is supported by the Joint DECC/Defra
Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). Particular thanks go to Marie-Estelle Demory
and Richard Levine for providing Figs.
2
and
6
.
References
Allan RP, Slingo A, Milton SF, Brooks ME (2007) Evaluation of the Met Office global forecast model using
Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget (GERB) data. Q J R Meteorol Soc 133:1993-2010. doi:
10.1002/
Bechtold P, Chaboureau J-P, Beljaars A, Betts AK, Kohler M, Miller M, Redelsperger J-L (2004) The
simulation of the diurnal cycle of convective precipitation over land in a global model. Q J R Meteorol
Soc 130:3119-3137
Bengtsson L, Koumoutsaris S, Bonnet R, Herland E-A, Huybrechts P, Johannessen O, Milne G, Oerlemans
H, Ohmura A, Ramstein G, Woodworth P (eds) (2011) Special issue: ISSI workshop on the earth's
cryosphere and sea level change. Surv Geophys 32:315-657. doi:
10.1007/s10712-011-9136-0
Bodas-Salcedo A, Webb MJ, Bony S, Chepfer H, Dufresne J-L, Klein SA, Zhang Y, Marchand R, Haynes
JM, Pincus R, John VO (2011) COSP: satellite simulation software for model assessment. Bull Am
Meteorol Soc. doi:
10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1
Boos WR, Kuang Z (2010) Dominant control of the South Asian monsoon by orographic insulation versus
plateau heating. Nature 463:218-222. doi:
10.1038/nature08707
Chahine MT, Pagano TS, Aumann HH, Atlas R, Barnet C, Chen L, Divakarla M, Fetzer EJ, Goldberg M,
Gautier C, Granger S, Irion FW, Kakar R, Kalnay E, Lambrigtsen BH, Lee SY, Le Marshall J,
McMillan W, McMillin L, Olsen ET, Revercomb H, Rosenkranz P, Smith WL, Staelin D, Strow LL,
Susskind J, Tobin D, Wolf W (2006) The Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder (AIRS): improving weather
forecasting and providing new insights into climate. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87:911-926. doi:
10.1175/
Clark AJ, Gallus WA, Chen T-C (2007) Comparison of the diurnal precipitation cycle in convection-
resolving
and
non-convection-resolving
mesoscale
models.
Mon
Weath
Rev
135:3456-3473.
doi:
10.1175/MWR3467.1
Clark RT, Murphy JM, Brown SJ (2010) Do global warming targets limit heatwave risk? Geophys Res Lett
37:L17703. doi:
10.1029/2010GL043898
