Search

Changes in vegetation are known to have an impact on climate via biogeophysical effects such as changes in albedo and heat fluxes. Here, the effects of maximum afforestation and deforestation are studied over Europe. This is done by comparing three regional climate model simulations—one with present-day vegetation, one with maximum afforestation, and one with maximum deforestation. In general, afforestation leads to more evapotranspiration (ET), which leads to decreased near-surface temperature, whereas deforestation leads to less ET, which leads to increased temperature. There are exceptions, mainly in regions with little water available for ET. In such regions, changes in albedo are relatively more important for temperature. The simulated biogeophysical effect on seasonal mean temperature varies between 0.5° and 3°C across Europe. The effect on minimum and maximum temperature is larger than that on mean temperature. Increased (decreased) mean temperature is associated with an even larger increase (decrease) in maximum summer (minimum winter) temperature. The effect on precipitation is found to be small. Two additional simulations in which vegetation is changed in only one-half of the domain were also performed. These simulations show that the climatic effects from changed vegetation in Europe are local. The results imply that vegetation changes have had, and will have, a significant impact on local climate in Europe; the climatic response is comparable to climate change under RCP2.6. Therefore, effects from vegetation change should be taken into account when simulating past, present, and future climate for this region. The results also imply that vegetation changes could be used to mitigate local climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of simulations with the fourth release of the Rossby Center Regional Climate Model (RCA4) conducted within the COordinated Regional climate Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX) framework for South Asia at 50 km horizontal resolution are evaluated for mean winter (December-March) and summer (June-September) climate during 1980-2005. The two driving data sets ERA-Interim reanalysis and the general circulation model EC-Earth have been analyzed besides the RCA4 simulations to address the added value. RCA4 successfully captures the mean climate in both the seasons. The biases in RCA4 appear to come from the driving data sets which are amplified after downscaling. The jet streams influencing the seasonal precipitation variability in both seasons are also analyzed. The spatial and quantitative analysis over CORDEX South Asia generally revealed the ability of RCA4 to capture the mean seasonal climate as well as the position and strength of the jet streams despite weak/strong jet representation in the driving data. The EC-Earth downscaled with RCA4 exhibited cold biases over the domain and a weak Somali jet over the Arabian Sea. Moreover, the moisture transport from the Arabian Sea during summer is pronounced in RCA4 simulations resulting in enhanced monsoon rainfall over northwestern parts of India. Both the Somali jet and the tropical easterly jet become stronger during strong summer monsoon years. However, there is robust impact of wet years in summer over the Somali jet. Wet-minus-dry composites in winter indicate strengthening (weakening) of the subtropical jet in RCA4 run by ERA-Interim (EC-Earth). The driving data have clear reflections on the RCA4 simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dynamical downscaling of ECHAM5 using HIRHAM5 and RCA3 for a northern European domain focused on Scandinavia indicates sustained extreme wind speeds with long recurrence intervals (50 years) and intense winds are not likely to evolve out of the historical envelope of variability until the end of C21st. Even then, significant changes are indicated only in the SW of the domain and across the central Baltic Sea where there is some evidence for relatively small magnitude increases in the 50 year return period wind speed (of up to 15%). There are marked differences in results based on the two Regional Climate Models. Additionally, internal (inherent) variability and initial conditions exert a strong impact on projected wind climates throughout the twenty-first century. Simulations of wind gusts by one of the RCMs (RCA3) indicate some evidence for increased magnitudes (of up to +10%) in the southwest of the domain and across the central Baltic Sea by the end of the current century. As in prior downscaling of ECHAM4, dynamical downscaling of ECHAM5 indicates a tendency towards increased energy density and thus wind power generation potential over the course of the C21st. However, caution should be used in interpreting this inference given the high degree of wind climate projection spread that derives from the specific AOGCM and RCM used in the downscaling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The major objectives of this paper are: (1) to review the pros and cons of the scenarios of past anthropogenic land cover change (ALCC) developed during the last ten years, (2) to discuss issues related to pollen-based reconstruction of the past land-cover and introduce a new method, REVEALS (Regional Estimates of VEgetation Abundance from Large Sites), to infer long-term records of past landcover from pollen data, (3) to present a new project (LANDCLIM: LAND cover - CLIMate interactions in NW Europe during the Holocene) currently underway, and show preliminary results of REVEALS reconstructions of the regional land-cover in the Czech Republic for five selected time windows of the Holocene, and (4) to discuss the implications and future directions in climate and vegetation/land-cover modeling, and in the assessment of the effects of human-induced changes in land-cover on the regional climate through altered feedbacks. The existing ALCC scenarios show large discrepancies between them, and few cover time periods older than AD 800. When these scenarios are used to assess the impact of human land-use on climate, contrasting results are obtained. It emphasizes the need for methods such as the REVEALS model-based land-cover reconstructions. They might help to fine-tune descriptions of past landcover and lead to a better understanding of how long-term changes in ALCC might have influenced climate. The REVEALS model is demonstrated to provide better estimates of the regional vegetation/land-cover changes than the traditional use of pollen percentages. This will achieve a robust assessment of land cover at regional- to continental-spatial scale throughout the Holocene. We present maps of REVEALS estimates for the percentage cover of 10 plant functional types (PFTs) at 200 BP and 6000 BP, and of the two open-land PFTs "grassland" and "agricultural land" at five time-windows from 6000 BP to recent time. The LANDCLIM results are expected to provide crucial data to reassess ALCC estimates for a better understanding of the land suface-atmosphere interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four high resolution atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) have been integrated with the standard forcings of the PRUDENCE experiment: IPCC-SRES A2 radiative forcing and Hadley Centre sea surface temperature and sea-ice extent. The response over Europe, calculated as the difference between the 2071–2100 and the 1961–1990 means is compared with the same diagnostic obtained with nine Regional Climate Models (RCM) all driven by the Hadley Centre atmospheric GCM. The seasonal mean response for 2m temperature and precipitation is investigated. For temperature, GCMs and RCMs behave similarly, except that GCMs exhibit a larger spread. However, during summer, the spread of the RCMs—in particular in terms of precipitation—is larger than that of the GCMs. This indicates that the European summer climate is strongly controlled by parameterized physics and/or high-resolution processes. The temperature response is larger than the systematic error. The situation is different for precipitation. The model bias is twice as large as the climate response. The confidence in PRUDENCE results comes from the fact that the models have a similar response to the IPCC-SRES A2 forcing, whereas their systematic errors are more spread. In addition, GCM precipitation response is slightly but significantly different from that of the RCMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]