Despite their adverse impacts, definitions and measurements of heat waves are ambiguous and inconsistent, generally being endemic to only the group affected, or the respective study reporting the analysis. The present study addresses this issue by employing a set of three heat wave definitions, derived from surveying heat-related indices in the climate science literature. The definitions include three or more consecutive days above one of the following: the 90th percentile for maximum temperature, the 90th percentile for minimum temperature, and positive extreme heat factor (EHF) conditions. Additionally, each index is studied using a multiaspect framework measuring heat wave number, duration, participating days, and the peak and mean magnitudes. Observed climatologies and trends computed by Sen's Kendall slope estimator are presented for the Australian continent for two time periods (1951–2008 and 1971–2008). Trends in all aspects and definitions are smaller in magnitude but more significant for 1951–2008 than for 1971–2008. Considerable similarities exist in trends of the yearly number of days participating in a heat wave and yearly heat wave frequency, suggesting that the number of available heat wave days drives the number of events. Larger trends in the hottest part of a heat wave suggest that heat wave intensity is increasing faster than the mean magnitude. Although the direct results of this study cannot be inferred for other regions, the methodology has been designed as such that it is widely applicable. Furthermore, it includes a range of definitions that may be useful for a wide range of systems impacted by heat waves.

The coupled climate models used in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are evaluated. The evaluation is focused on 12 regions of Australia for the daily simulation of precipitation, minimum temperature, and maximum temperature. The evaluation is based on probability density functions and a simple quantitative measure of how well each climate model can capture the observed probability density functions for each variable and each region is introduced. Across all three variables, the coupled climate models perform better than expected. Precipitation is simulated reasonably by most and very well by a small number of models, although the problem with excessive drizzle is apparent in most models. Averaged over Australia, 3 of the 14 climate models capture more than 80% of the observed probability density functions for precipitation. Minimum temperature is simulated well, with 10 of the 13 climate models capturing more than 80% of the observed probability density functions. Maximum temperature is also reasonably simulated with 6 of 10 climate models capturing more than 80% of the observed probability density functions. An overall ranking of the climate models, for each of precipitation, maximum, and minimum temperatures, and averaged over these three variables, is presented. Those climate models that are skillful over Australia are identified, providing guidance on those climate models that should be used in impacts assessments where those impacts are based on precipitation or temperature. These results have no bearing on how well these models work elsewhere, but the methodology is potentially useful in assessing which of the many climate models should be used by impacts groups.

ABSTRACT:The projection of temperature extremes by climate models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined regionally over Australia. Minimum and maximum temperature extremes are defined as the 20 year return value calculated using extreme value theory. Three measures of model evaluation, a means-based, a distribution-based [via probability density functions (PDFs)] and an extreme-based (via the tails of PDFs) method, are used to compare daily model data to observed daily data over various climatic regions for a 20 year period. Model ensembles consisting of the 'better' and 'poorer' models determined by each measure of skill are created for each region. These are compared with an all-model ensemble to examine the difference in more skilled ensemble projections of temperature extremes in the A2 (high emissions) scenario for 2046-2065 and 2081-2100. If either of the distribution-based evaluation methods were used to distinguish models, the higher skilled models projected smaller increases in the 20 year return values than the all-model ensemble for both maximum temperature and minimum temperature. For some regions, the 90% confidence intervals of the better and poorer ensemble ranges did not overlap, indicating that projections are statistically significantly different. We show that the means-based evaluation produces less consistent results to the two distribution-based evaluation methods. We conclude that specific AR4 models, shown to be relatively poor over most regions of Australia by different skill metrics, bias the projected increase in the 20 year temperature extremes towards higher values. We also suggest that performance in simulating the mean climate is an unreliable measure of climate model capacity used to select models for projecting changes in extremes over Australia.