Campus Units

Agronomy, Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Document Type

Article

Publication Version

Published Version

Publication Date

7-2013

Journal or Book Title

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Volume

94

Issue

7

First Page

1077

Last Page

1078

DOI

10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00013.1

Abstract

The authors of Mearns et al. (2012) are aware of the role of driving RCMs with reanalyses and have written extensively on the roles of different types of regional climate models (RCMs) simulations (e.g., Giorgi and Mearns 1999; Leung et al. 2003). Thus, we agree that the skill of dynamical downscaling in which global reanalysis is used to provide boundary conditions in general indicates an upper bound of skill compared to dynamical downscaling in which the boundary conditions come from global climate model simulations. This finding has long been established, as global climate model simulations cannot outperform global reanalysis in providing boundary conditions since the latter is constrained by observations through data assimilation (that is, unless the reanalyses themselves have been shown to have serious deficiences; e.g., Cerezo-Mota et al 2011). The classification of different types of dynamical downscaling introduced by Castro et al. (2005) further adds clarity to this point.

Comments

This article is from Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 1077–1078. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00013.1. Posted with permission.

Copyright Owner

American Meteorological Society

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Share

COinS