Downscaling extremes: A comparison of extreme value distributions in point-source and gridded precipitation data

There is substantial empirical and climatological evidence that precipitation extremes have become more extreme during the twentieth century, and that this trend is likely to continue as global warming becomes more intense. However, understanding these issues is limited by a fundamental issue of spatial scaling: most evidence of past trends comes from rain gauge data, whereas trends into the future are produced by climate models, which rely on gridded aggregates. To study this further, we fit the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution to the right tail of the distribution of both rain gauge and gridded events. The results of this modeling exercise confirm that return values computed from rain gauge data are typically higher than those computed from gridded data; however, the size of the difference is somewhat surprising, with the rain gauge data exhibiting return values sometimes two or three times that of the gridded data. The main contribution of this paper is the development of a family of regression relationships between the two sets of return values that also take spatial variations into account. Based on these results, we now believe it is possible to project future changes in precipitation extremes at the point-location level based on results from climate models.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-AOAS287 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Towards process-informed bias correction of climate change simulations

Biases in climate model simulations introduce biases in subsequent impact simulations. Therefore, bias correction methods are operationally used to post-process regional climate projections. However, many problems have been identified, and some researchers question the very basis of the approach. Here we demonstrate that a typical cross-validation is unable to identify improper use of bias correction. Several examples show the limited ability of bias correction to correct and to downscale variability, and demonstrate that bias correction can cause implausible climate change signals. Bias correction cannot overcome major model errors, and naive application might result in ill-informed adaptation decisions. We conclude with a list of recommendations and suggestions for future research to reduce, post-process, and cope with climate model biases

An introduction to Trends in Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Observations, Socioeconomic Impacts, Terrestrial Ecological Impacts, and Model Projections

Weather and climatic extremes can have serious and damaging effects on human society and infrastructure as well as on ecosystems and wildlife. Thus, they are usually the main focus of attention of the news media in reports on climate. There are some indications from observations concerning how climatic extremes may have changed in the past. Climate models show how they could change in the future either due to natural climate fluctuations or under conditions of greenhouse gas-induced warming. These observed and modeled changes relate directly to the understanding of socioeconomic and ecological impacts related to extremes.Integrative Biolog

A Regional Climate Change Assessment Program for North America

There are two main uncertainties in determining future climate: the trajectories of future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the response of the global climate system to any given set of future emissions [Meehl et al., 2007]. These uncertainties normally are elucidated via application of global climate models, which provide information at relatively coarse spatial resolutions. Greater interest in, and concern about, the details of climate change at regional scales has provided the motivation for the application of regional climate models, which introduces additional uncertainty [Christensen et al., 2007a]. These uncertainties in fine-scale regional climate responses, in contrast to uncertainties of coarser spatial resolution global models in which regional models are nested, now have been documented in numerous contexts [Christensen et al., 2007a] and have been found to extend to uncertainties in climate impacts [Wood et al., 2004; Oleson et al., 2007]. While European research in future climate projections has moved forward systematically to examine combined uncertainties from global and regional models [Christensen et al., 2007b], North American climate programs have lagged behind

Simulating North American Weather Types With Regional Climate Models

Regional climate models (RCMs) are able to simulate small-scale processes that are missing in their coarser resolution driving data and thereby provide valuable climate information for climate impact assessments. Less attention has been paid to the ability of RCMs to capture large-scale weather types (WTs). An inaccurate representation of WTs can result in biases and uncertainties in current and future climate simulations that cannot be easily detected by standard model evaluation metrics. Here we define 12 hydrologically important WTs in the contiguous United States (CONUS). We test if RCMs from the North American CORDEX (NA-CORDEX) and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model large physics ensembles (WRF36) can capture those WTs in the current climate and how they simulate changes in the future. Our results show that the NA-CORDEX RCMs are able to simulate WTs more accurately than members of the WRF36 ensemble. The much larger WRF36 domain in combination with not constraining large-scale conditions by spectral nudging results in lower WT skill. The selection of the driving global climate model (GCM) has a large effect on the skill of NA-CORDEX simulations but a smaller impact on the WRF36 runs. The formulation of the RCM is of minor importance except for capturing the variability within WTs. Changing the model physics or increasing the RCM horizontal grid spacing has little effect. These results highlight the importance of selecting GCMs with accurate synoptic-scale variability for downscaling and to find a balance between large domains that can result in biased WT representations and small domains that inhibit the realistic development of mesoscale processes. At the end of the century, monsoonal flow conditions increase systematically by up to 30% and a WT that is a significant source of moisture for the Northern Plains during the growing seasons decreases systematically up to –30%

Reply to “Comments on ‘The North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program: Overview of Phase I Results\u27”

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

The Practitioner's Dilemma: How to Assess the Credibility of Downscaled Climate Projections

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/101803/1/eost2013EO460005.pd

Regional Extreme Monthly Precipitation Simulated by NARCCAP RCMs

This paper analyzes the ability of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) ensemble of regional climate models to simulate extreme monthly precipitation and its supporting circulation for regions of North America, comparing 18 years of simulations driven by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)–Department of Energy (DOE) reanalysis with observations. The analysis focuses on the wettest 10% of months during the cold half of the year (October–March), when it is assumed that resolved synoptic circulation governs precipitation. For a coastal California region where the precipitation is largely topographic, the models individually and collectively replicate well the monthly frequency of extremes, the amount of extreme precipitation, and the 500-hPa circulation anomaly associated with the extremes. The models also replicate very well the statistics of the interannual variability of occurrences of extremes. For an interior region containing the upper Mississippi River basin, where precipitation is more dependent on internally generated storms, the models agree with observations in both monthly frequency and magnitude, although not as closely as for coastal California. In addition, simulated circulation anomalies for extreme months are similar to those in observations. Each region has important seasonally varying precipitation processes that govern the occurrence of extremes in the observations, and the models appear to replicate well those variations

The vulnerability, impacts, adaptation and climate services advisory board (VIACS AB v1.0) contribution to CMIP6

This paper describes the motivation for the creation of the Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services (VIACS) Advisory Board for the Sixth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), its initial activities, and its plans to serve as a bridge between climate change applications experts and climate modelers. The climate change application community comprises researchers and other specialists who use climate information (alongside socioeconomic and other environmental information) to analyze vulnerability, impacts and adaptation of natural systems and society in relation to past, ongoing and projected future climate change. Much of this activity is directed toward the co-development of information needed by decision-makers for managing projected risks. CMIP6 provides a unique opportunity to facilitate a two-way dialogue between climate modelers and VIACS experts who are looking to apply CMIP6 results for a wide array of research and climate services objectives. The VIACS Advisory Board convenes leaders of major impact sectors, international programs, and climate services to solicit community feedback that increases applications relevance of the CMIP6-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). As an illustration of its potential, the VIACS community provided CMIP6 leadership with a list of prioritized climate model variables and MIP experiments of greatest interest to the climate model applications community, indicating the applicability and societal relevance of climate model simulation outputs. The VIACS Advisory Board also recommended an impacts version of Obs4MIPs, and indicated user needs for the gridding and processing of model output

Natural Ecosystems I. The Rocky Mountains

This assessment of climate-change effects on Rocky Mountain terrestrial ecosystems is prepare from information generated by a workshop focused on terrestrial systems of the Rocky Mountains, and held in Boulder, CO, on 29-30 September 2000 at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. It is a compilation of this workshop\u27s discussion along with material from earlier workshops