I believe in climate change but how precautionary do we need to be in planning for the future?
I believe in climate change but how precautionary do we need to be in planning for the future?
复制标题
我相信气候变化，但我们在规划未来时需要采取多大的预防措施？
DOI：
10.1002/hyp.7939
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Beven K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beven K
我相信气候变化。然而，我感到关切的是，目前这一代全球气候模型的预测并不完全可信。与正常控制期（1961-1990年）的预测比较表明，它们往往表现出强烈的偏差，特别是在降水估计方面（利斯和钱德勒，2010年）。在世界许多地方，即使有区域尺度动态降尺度模型的集合预测，它们也不足以预测控制期，以至于许多气候变化影响的水文研究都使用了对当前条件的偏差校正，然后假设这些条件在未来保持不变。defra。gov.uk/显示了25公里尺度下预测变化的许多不同方面。他们没有显示任何预测与控制期的比较（尽管已经发布了一个官方问题，要求提供这些问题）。我仍在等待答复。我可以鼓励其他人登录并提出同样的问题吗？）。实际上，UKCP 09天气生成器（可以根据控制期统计数据获得5 km尺度的天气预测实现）仅通过将区域气候模型（RCM）导出的变化因子应用于控制期参数来使用区域未来气候预测，以生成未来实现（Kilsby等人，2007年）。当然，我们期望，随着更多的研究资金投入到气候建模，更多的计算机能力投入到更精细的网格尺度的气候建模中，模型中更好的地表参数化（即水文学和水文学家仍然应该对它的表现方式感到畏缩！）以及对模式中其他过程表示的更好理解，下一代气候模式的预测可能会更好。但与此同时，有大量的研究时间、精力和金钱被投入到基于当前一代模型预测的影响研究中（Wilby和Harris，2006年; Bell等人，2007年，还有很多人。问题是，这些工作是否适合于适应或管理未来？
I believe in climate change. I am concerned, however, that the projections of the current generation of global climate models are not entirely credible. Comparisons of their predictions with the normal control period (1961–1990) show that they often exhibit strong bias, particularly with respect to precipitation estimates (Leith and Chandler, 2010). They are inadequate predictors of the control period in many parts of the world, even where there are ensemble predictions of regional-scale dynamic downscaling models, to the extent that many hydrological studies of the impacts of climate change are using bias corrections with respect to current conditions that are then assumed to hold in the future.In the United Kingdom, the UKCP09 outputs at http://ukcp09. defra. gov. uk/show many different aspects of the predicted changes at 25 km scale. They do not show any comparison of the predictions with the control period (despite having posted an official question asking for these to be made available. I am still awaiting a reply. Can I encourage others to log on and pose the same question!). Indeed, the UKCP09 weather generator (for which predicted realizations of weather at the 5 km scale can be obtained based on control period statistics), uses the regional future climate projections only by applying regional climate model (RCM)-derived change factors to the control period parameters in generating future realizations (Kilsby et al., 2007). We expect, of course, that with more research money devoted to climate modelling, more computer power devoted to climate modelling at finer grid scales, better land surface parameterizations in the models (ie the hydrology and hydrologists should still wince at how it is being represented!) and improved understanding of other process representations in the models, the projections of the next generation of climate models might well be better. But in the meantime, there is an awful lot of research time, effort and money being devoted to impact studies based on the projections of the current generation of models (Wilby and Harris, 2006; Bell et al., 2007, and many others). The question is whether any of this work is fit for the purpose of adapting to, or managing for, the future?
登录
查看更多内容
何时何地可以在英国河流中检测到气候变化？
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
R. Wilby
通讯作者：
R. Wilby
概率气候情景可能会歪曲不确定性并导致错误的适应决策
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Hall
通讯作者：
J. Hall
A-OGCM 的长期表面温度动态：重新审视 HadCM3 4×CO2 强迫实验
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Sile Li;A. Jarvis
通讯作者：
A. Jarvis
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
A. Jarvis;D. Leedal;James Taylor;P. Young
通讯作者：
P. Young