Performance evaluation of bias adjustment methods for wave climate projections in the Mediterranean Sea

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Lira Loarca ◽  
Giovanni Besio
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Temporal Variability ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Wave Climate ◽  
Mapping Method ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Bias Adjustment ◽  
Distribution Mapping

<p>Global and regional climate models are the primary tools to investigate the climate system response to different scenarios and therefore allow to make future projections of different atmospheric variables which are used as input for wave generation models to assess future wave climate. Adequate projections of future wave climate are needed in order to analyze climate change impacts and hazards in coastal areas such as flooding and erosion with waves being the predominant factor with varied temporal variability. </p><p>Bias adjustment methods are commonly used for climate impact variables dealing with systematic errors (biases) found in global and regional climate models.  While bias correction techniques are extended in the climate and hydrological impact modeling scientific communities, there is still a lack of consensus regarding their use in sea climate variables (Parker & Hill, 2017; Lemos et al, 2020; Lira-Loarca et at, 2021)</p><p>In these work we assess the performance of different bias-adjustment methods such as the Empirical Gumbel Quantile Mapping (EGQM) method as a standard method which takes into the account the extreme values of the distribution takes, the Distribution Mapping method using Stationary Mixture Distributions (DM-stMix) allowing for a better representation of each variable in the mean regime and tails and the Distribution Mapping method using Non-Stationary Mixture Distributions (DM-nonstMix) as an improved methods which allows to take into account the temporal variability of wave climate according to different baseline periods such as monthly, seasonal, yearly and decadal. The performance of the different bias adjustment methods will be analyzed with particular interest on the futural temporal behavior of wave climate. The advantages and drawbacks of each bias adjustment method as well as their complexity will be discussed.</p><p> </p><p><em>References:</em></p><ul><li>Lemos, G., Menendez, M., Semedo, A., Camus, P., Hemer, M., Dobrynin, M., Miranda, P.M.A. (2020). On the need of bias correction methods for wave climate projections, Global and Planetary Change, 186, 103109.</li> <li><span>Lira-Loarca, A., Cobos, M., Besio, G., Baquerizo, A. (2021) Projected wave climate temporal variability due to climate change. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess.</span></li> <li><span>Parker, K. & Hill, D.F. (2017) Evaluation of bias correction methods for wave modeling output, Ocean Modelling 110, 52-65</span></li> </ul><p><br><br></p>

scholarly journals New Approach for Bias Correction and Stochastic Downscaling of Future Projections for Daily Mean Temperatures to a High-Resolution Grid

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (12) ◽  
pp. 2617-2632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qifen Yuan ◽  
Thordis L. Thorarinsdottir ◽  
Stein Beldring ◽  
Wai Kwok Wong ◽  
Shaochun Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Data Product ◽  
Temporal Features ◽  
Stochastic Downscaling

AbstractIn applications of climate information, coarse-resolution climate projections commonly need to be downscaled to a finer grid. One challenge of this requirement is the modeling of subgrid variability and the spatial and temporal dependence at the finer scale. Here, a postprocessing procedure for temperature projections is proposed that addresses this challenge. The procedure employs statistical bias correction and stochastic downscaling in two steps. In the first step, errors that are related to spatial and temporal features of the first two moments of the temperature distribution at model scale are identified and corrected. Second, residual space–time dependence at the finer scale is analyzed using a statistical model, from which realizations are generated and then combined with an appropriate climate change signal to form the downscaled projection fields. Using a high-resolution observational gridded data product, the proposed approach is applied in a case study in which projections of two regional climate models from the Coordinated Downscaling Experiment–European Domain (EURO-CORDEX) ensemble are bias corrected and downscaled to a 1 km × 1 km grid in the Trøndelag area of Norway. A cross-validation study shows that the proposed procedure generates results that better reflect the marginal distributional properties of the data product and have better consistency in space and time when compared with empirical quantile mapping.

scholarly journals How does bias correction of regional climate model precipitation affect modelled runoff?

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 711-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Teng ◽  
N. J. Potter ◽  
F. H. S. Chiew ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
B. Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Wrf Model ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Mapping Method ◽  
Future Climate Change ◽  
Runoff Generation ◽  
Simulated Precipitation

Abstract. Many studies bias correct daily precipitation from climate models to match the observed precipitation statistics, and the bias corrected data are then used for various modelling applications. This paper presents a review of recent methods used to bias correct precipitation from regional climate models (RCMs). The paper then assesses four bias correction methods applied to the weather research and forecasting (WRF) model simulated precipitation, and the follow-on impact on modelled runoff for eight catchments in southeast Australia. Overall, the best results are produced by either quantile mapping or a newly proposed two-state gamma distribution mapping method. However, the differences between the methods are small in the modelling experiments here (and as reported in the literature), mainly due to the substantial corrections required and inconsistent errors over time (non-stationarity). The errors in bias corrected precipitation are typically amplified in modelled runoff. The tested methods cannot overcome limitations of the RCM in simulating precipitation sequence, which affects runoff generation. Results further show that whereas bias correction does not seem to alter change signals in precipitation means, it can introduce additional uncertainty to change signals in high precipitation amounts and, consequently, in runoff. Future climate change impact studies need to take this into account when deciding whether to use raw or bias corrected RCM results. Nevertheless, RCMs will continue to improve and will become increasingly useful for hydrological applications as the bias in RCM simulations reduces.

scholarly journals On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 1189-1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Hydrological Models

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment-scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques, as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of uncertainty. Within the QBic3 project (Québec–Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change), the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models. Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use regional climate models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to facilitate the reproduction of historic runoff conditions when used in hydrological models, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For these reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary to obtain the change signal in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use for the production of present and future river runoff scenarios as it does not alter the change signal. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past, regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future periods is weak for most indicators, with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

scholarly journals How does bias correction of RCM precipitation affect modelled runoff?

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 10683-10724
Author(s):  
J. Teng ◽  
N. J. Potter ◽  
F. H. S. Chiew ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
J. Vaze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Wrf Model ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Mapping Method ◽  
Future Climate Change ◽  
Runoff Generation ◽  
Simulated Precipitation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract. Many studies bias correct daily precipitation from climate models to match the observed precipitation statistics, and the bias corrected data are then used for various modelling applications. This paper presents a review of recent methods used to bias correct precipitation from regional climate models (RCMs). The paper then assesses four bias correction methods applied to the weather research and forecasting (WRF) model simulated precipitation, and the follow-on impact on modelled runoff for eight catchments in southeast Australia. Overall, the best results are produced by either quantile mapping or a newly proposed two-state gamma distribution mapping method. However, the difference between the tested methods is small in the modelling experiments here (and as reported in the literature), mainly because of the substantial corrections required and inconsistent errors over time (non-stationarity). The errors remaining in bias corrected precipitation are typically amplified in modelled runoff. The tested methods cannot overcome limitation of RCM in simulating precipitation sequence, which affects runoff generation. Results further show that whereas bias correction does not seem to alter change signals in precipitation means, it can introduce additional uncertainty to change signals in high precipitation amounts and, consequently, in runoff. Future climate change impact studies need to take this into account when deciding whether to use raw or bias corrected RCM results. Nevertheless, RCMs will continue to improve and will become increasingly useful for hydrological applications as the bias in RCM simulations reduces.

scholarly journals On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 10205-10243 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Hydrological Models

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of incertitude. Within the QBic3 project (Québec-Bavaria International Collaboration on Climate Change) the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models. Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use Regional Climate Models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to reproduce historic runoff conditions from hydrological models using them, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For those reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use as it does not alter the change signal of river runoff. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future period is weak for most indicators with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

Regional Climate Scenarios for use in Nordic Water Resources Studies

2003 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Rummukainen ◽  
J. Räisänen ◽  
D. Bjørge ◽  
J.H. Christensen ◽  
O.B. Christensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Climate Scenarios ◽  
Soil Frost ◽  
Nordic Region ◽  
Regional Climate Projections

According to global climate projections, a substantial global climate change will occur during the next decades, under the assumption of continuous anthropogenic climate forcing. Global models, although fundamental in simulating the response of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing are typically geographically too coarse to well represent many regional or local features. In the Nordic region, climate studies are conducted in each of the Nordic countries to prepare regional climate projections with more detail than in global ones. Results so far indicate larger temperature changes in the Nordic region than in the global mean, regional increases and decreases in net precipitation, longer growing season, shorter snow season etc. These in turn affect runoff, snowpack, groundwater, soil frost and moisture, and thus hydropower production potential, flooding risks etc. Regional climate models do not yet fully incorporate hydrology. Water resources studies are carried out off-line using hydrological models. This requires archived meteorological output from climate models. This paper discusses Nordic regional climate scenarios for use in regional water resources studies. Potential end-users of water resources scenarios are the hydropower industry, dam safety instances and planners of other lasting infrastructure exposed to precipitation, river flows and flooding.

scholarly journals Projecting Health Impacts of Future Temperature: A Comparison of Quantile-Mapping Bias-Correction Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1992
Author(s):  
Weijia Qian ◽  
Howard H. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Ed Visits

Health impact assessments of future environmental exposures are routinely conducted to quantify population burdens associated with the changing climate. It is well-recognized that simulations from climate models need to be bias-corrected against observations to estimate future exposures. Quantile mapping (QM) is a technique that has gained popularity in climate science because of its focus on bias-correcting the entire exposure distribution. Even though improved bias-correction at the extreme tails of exposure may be particularly important for estimating health burdens, the application of QM in health impact projection has been limited. In this paper we describe and apply five QM methods to estimate excess emergency department (ED) visits due to projected changes in warm-season minimum temperature in Atlanta, USA. We utilized temperature projections from an ensemble of regional climate models in the North American-Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (NA-CORDEX). Across QM methods, we estimated consistent increase in ED visits across climate model ensemble under RCP 8.5 during the period 2050 to 2099. We found that QM methods can significantly reduce between-model variation in health impact projections (50–70% decreases in between-model standard deviation). Particularly, the quantile delta mapping approach had the largest reduction and is recommended also because of its ability to preserve model-projected absolute temporal changes in quantiles.

scholarly journals Simulating future precipitation extremes in a complex Alpine catchment

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Dobler ◽  
G. Bürger ◽  
J. Stötter
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Precipitation Extremes ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Research Station ◽  
Climate Change Scenarios ◽  
Station Data

Abstract. The objectives of the present investigation are (i) to study the effects of climate change on precipitation extremes and (ii) to assess the uncertainty in the climate projections. The investigation is performed on the Lech catchment, located in the Northern Limestone Alps. In order to estimate the uncertainty in the climate projections, two statistical downscaling models as well as a number of global and regional climate models were considered. The downscaling models applied are the Expanded Downscaling (XDS) technique and the Long Ashton Research Station Weather Generator (LARS-WG). The XDS model, which is driven by analyzed or simulated large-scale synoptic fields, has been calibrated using ECMWF-interim reanalysis data and local station data. LARS-WG is controlled through stochastic parameters representing local precipitation variability, which are calibrated from station data only. Changes in precipitation mean and variability as simulated by climate models were then used to perturb the parameters of LARS-WG in order to generate climate change scenarios. In our study we use climate simulations based on the A1B emission scenario. The results show that both downscaling models perform well in reproducing observed precipitation extremes. In general, the results demonstrate that the projections are highly variable. The choice of both the GCM and the downscaling method are found to be essential sources of uncertainty. For spring and autumn, a slight tendency toward an increase in the intensity of future precipitation extremes is obtained, as a number of simulations show statistically significant increases in the intensity of 90th and 99th percentiles of precipitation on wet days as well as the 5- and 20-yr return values.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document